Well done, Minneapolis! (St. Paul, Bloomington: apartments, townhouse, to buy)

[InnovativeAmerican]

Originally Posted by treemoni

This thread gives great insight into where the TCs is socially. I had to check my calendar a few times while reading certain posts.

While I think you exaggerate a lot and seem to have unnecessary beef with MN, I think some of your complaints are valid: Being on C-D made me realize that many Minnesotans really do seem in denial about issues that permeate this state, specifically racial ones. At least I love this state enough to actually WANT to make a difference through having dialogue about them, but deniers are simply the worst offenders. Again, MN is one of the BEST states to live, in my opinion as a POC, and race relations seem a lot better here than other places, but the disparities along racial lines are indeed pronounced, and while there may not be much we can do, the worst thing you can do is try to chastise someone into silence about societal issues that affect ALL Minnesotans.

Also, no matter where you are on the social ladder, your identity doesn't make one exempt from discrimination. Again, I support Minneapolis' decision in eliminating single-family homes, and I stand by it.

[treemoni]

I mean, when someone like LeTraveler gets attacked (who is the total opposite of me), you know there's a real problem. It's denial, just like you said. The ego can't handle the truth.

ETA: Back on topic. Eliminating SFH restrictions just makes sense in a world where younger people have more debt than prior generations and people are more mobile. Minnesotans may be content to spend their whole lives in the state now, but that is not always going to be true. The people who don't want to let go of the old ways are going to ultimately be the state's downfall. It already felt to me like MN was stuck in time. Plus, having mostly SFHs is just not aesthetically pleasing to a city lover. I love architecture and I found MN quite boring in that regard. The North Side of Chicago (which is no poor by any stretch) has a mix of different housing, like most of the city, and it adds character. I just see this "fight" as another sign that MNs value homogenization.

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by treemoni

I mean, when someone like LeTraveler gets attacked (who is the total opposite of me), you know there's a real problem. It's denial, just like you said. The ego can't handle the truth.

ETA: Back on topic. Eliminating SFH restrictions just makes sense in a world where younger people have more debt than prior generations and people are more mobile. Minnesotans may be content to spend their whole lives in the state now, but that is not always going to be true. The people who don't want to let go of the old ways are going to ultimately be the state's downfall. It already felt to me like MN was stuck in time. Plus, having mostly SFHs is just not aesthetically pleasing to a city lover. I love architecture and I found MN quite boring in that regard. The North Side of Chicago (which is no poor by any stretch) has a mix of different housing, like most of the city, and it adds character. I just see this "fight" as another sign that MNs value homogenization.

I disagree that there is anything particularly "Minnesotan" about resisting development. San Francisco is the object lesson when it comes to homeowners stifling development. We've seen by its example what happens when you don't add density when demand warrants it: if you're middle class- like a teacher or police officer- you probably live an hour or two outside of San Fran if you work there. The 2040 plan is groundbreaking and innovative and is really the only plan not premised on the notion of repeating the exact same zoning mistakes other municipalities have made.

It's reasonable to have concerns about the 2040 plan and to be concerned with its outcome. It is not reasonable to maintain the exact same kind of resistance to development and densification we have repeatedly seen in other municipalities and expect a different result.

[treemoni]

I understand what you're saying, but there is more than "housing" at work here. I'm willing to bet those public servants lived closer to the city at some point but moved when they saw changes they didn't like. I don't know how it works in San Fran, but a city worker in Chicago has to live in the city. At some point they actually created a neighborhood for these workers so they could meet the residency requirement but not have to live in certain neighborhoods. This problem is multilayered and you're right. Other cities have dealt with it, decades ago, and getting there wasn't always pretty. So hopefully you all don't succumb to the same issues those other cities (like Chicago) did. The blueprint is already there. What worked, and what didn't. Being resistant to change will always have long-term negative effects, though.

[wamer27]

Originally Posted by treemoni

I understand what you're saying, but there is more than "housing" at work here. I'm willing to bet those public servants lived closer to the city at some point but moved when they saw changes they didn't like. I don't know how it works in San Fran, but a city worker in Chicago has to live in the city. At some point they actually created a neighborhood for these workers so they could meet the residency requirement but not have to live in certain neighborhoods. This problem is multilayered and you're right. Other cities have dealt with it, decades ago, and getting there wasn't always pretty. So hopefully you all don't succumb to the same issues those other cities (like Chicago) did. The blueprint is already there. What worked, and what didn't. Being resistant to change will always have long-term negative effects, though.

Forced to live somewhere is a good thing??? So if I chose to work for city of Chicago as an engineer and I own and live on a ranch, yeah no job for you.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by wamer27

Forced to live somewhere is a good thing??? So if I chose to work for city of Chicago as an engineer and I own and live on a ranch, yeah no job for you.

LOL. I wouldn’t sweat this one. You got a real ranch you won’t want an engineering job in Chicago.

[treemoni]

Originally Posted by wamer27

Forced to live somewhere is a good thing??? So if I chose to work for city of Chicago as an engineer and I own and live on a ranch, yeah no job for you.

Chicago is corrupt when it comes to these things, but I don't disagree with there being a requirement for you to live in the municipality you want to to work in. Why get an employee from the suburbs when there are thousands of city residents who need good jobs? Towns, cities, states, COUNTRIES...should take care of their own first.

[Mason3000]

Originally Posted by treemoni

Chicago is corrupt when it comes to these things, but I don't disagree with there being a requirement for you to live in the municipality you want to to work in. Why get an employee from the suburbs when there are thousands of city residents who need good jobs? Towns, cities, states, COUNTRIES...should take care of their own first.

Damn straight. America first!

[Mason3000]

Originally Posted by treemoni

I understand what you're saying, but there is more than "housing" at work here. I'm willing to bet those public servants lived closer to the city at some point but moved when they saw changes they didn't like. I don't know how it works in San Fran, but a city worker in Chicago has to live in the city. At some point they actually created a neighborhood for these workers so they could meet the residency requirement but not have to live in certain neighborhoods. This problem is multilayered and you're right. Other cities have dealt with it, decades ago, and getting there wasn't always pretty. So hopefully you all don't succumb to the same issues those other cities (like Chicago) did. The blueprint is already there. What worked, and what didn't. Being resistant to change will always have long-term negative effects, though.

Nothing wrong with modeling, but Mpls and Chicago are two completely different animals. In terms of size, population, demographics, etc. One could look at Sweden and say "Socialism works, the blueprint is already there.", but those living in Venezuela, would tell you otherwise. Why didn't both have the exact same outcomes? Because they didn't have the same inputs, just as Mpls and Chicago don't have the same inputs.

[Nitro2985]

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.