3 ms·

> Essentially this is just the city of Minneapolis making it harder for people to actually work in Minneapolis. I'm pretty sure the idea is actually the exact

> Essentially this is just the city of Minneapolis making it harder for people to actually work in Minneapolis. I'm pretty sure the idea is actually the exact opposite. Mandatory parking is expensive, this drives up the cost of housing. 2040 is about reducing the costs of housing and not making the same mistakes that San Francisco continues to make every day. 2040 is about getting ahead of NIMYism and making sure there is housing that is affordable inside the city so people don't have to drive from the suburbs. >very few people actually live in downtown minneapolis. This way people can live closer to work and not have to drive cars. Its more sustainable, its better for the environment, its better for people. So the idea is to change Minneapolis into a city where people do live downtown again. > a commuter city The result of terrible city planning starting in the mid century that is going to be expensive and difficult to undo. 2040 is a good plan that will fix this.

HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
I agree. I moved to Minneapolis 20 years ago and one of my first political memories is of Jesse Ventura arguing that mass transit had to be improved because building more roads just means that more people will drive. He was right. Parking is horrendous in Minneapolis. I moved away and now live in rural MN but take the bus into the city. It is far less stressful than driving and then wasting time trying to find a place to park. Especially as the surface lots are sold off to build apartments and condos. The parking situation will only get worse. If it weren't for MetroTransit, etc., building massive Park&Ride lots in the far suburbs, many of us would refuse to even work in the cities, likely causing an outflux of talent to better areas.
- aurailious 8y ago
  I was never really a fan of Ventura, but he wasn't actually terrible.
oftenwrong 8y ago
>not making the same mistakes that San Francisco continues to make every day. I am happy to report that San Francisco recently voted to eliminate minimum parking requirements: http://www.sfexaminer.com/minimum-parking-requirements-way-sf/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/minimum-parking-requirements-way-s...
- chrisdhoover 8y ago
  Yet MEDA, Calle 24, and Ronen continue to block any change in the Mission. To the absurd point of demanding that a failed bakery that was sold off be reopened as it once was by the new owner. Also, addional bike rental services are yuppie/techie/white and are blocked as well. There is a big hole in the ground on Mission st that will never be developed. Plans for development on Folsom were scuttled. Same for So Van Ness. Same for 16th and Mission.
ams6110 8y ago
> This way people can live closer to work and not have to drive cars. How will they get to work? How will they get to other places? Seems pretty unrealistic to think that a large number of people will be able to arrange their lives to not need a car at all. And Minneapolis winters? Forget walking/biking unless you like frostbite. Even if there's good mass transit, that doesn't go everywhere, all the time. I can imagine living in a situation where I didn't need a car for my daily trip to work. I've done it in Chicago. But I can't imagine not having a car at all. It would just be too inconvenient. And if I own a car, I need to be able to park it somewhere. And if that arrangement is too expensive or impossible downtown, I will live in the suburbs.
tw04 8y ago
>The result of terrible city planning starting in the mid century that is going to be expensive and difficult to undo. 2040 is a good plan that will fix this. Or the result of people that want a yard and a house that isn't 4ft from their neighbor. No plan is going to fix the fact that not everyone wants to live downtown.
- sjg007 8y ago
  You can choose to live outside the city and commute in.. there is light rail and the metro bus park and ride system. That + work remote makes it pretty reasonable. I imagine they will expand the light rail too.

HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago

I agree. I moved to Minneapolis 20 years ago and one of my first political memories is of Jesse Ventura arguing that mass transit had to be improved because building more roads just means that more people will drive. He was right. Parking is horrendous in Minneapolis. I moved away and now live in rural MN but take the bus into the city. It is far less stressful than driving and then wasting time trying to find a place to park. Especially as the surface lots are sold off to build apartments and condos. The parking situation will only get worse. If it weren't for MetroTransit, etc., building massive Park&Ride lots in the far suburbs, many of us would refuse to even work in the cities, likely causing an outflux of talent to better areas.

aurailious 8y ago
I was never really a fan of Ventura, but he wasn't actually terrible.

oftenwrong 8y ago

>not making the same mistakes that San Francisco continues to make every day. I am happy to report that San Francisco recently voted to eliminate minimum parking requirements: http://www.sfexaminer.com/minimum-parking-requirements-way-sf/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/minimum-parking-requirements-way-s...

chrisdhoover 8y ago
Yet MEDA, Calle 24, and Ronen continue to block any change in the Mission. To the absurd point of demanding that a failed bakery that was sold off be reopened as it once was by the new owner. Also, addional bike rental services are yuppie/techie/white and are blocked as well. There is a big hole in the ground on Mission st that will never be developed. Plans for development on Folsom were scuttled. Same for So Van Ness. Same for 16th and Mission.

ams6110 8y ago

> This way people can live closer to work and not have to drive cars. How will they get to work? How will they get to other places? Seems pretty unrealistic to think that a large number of people will be able to arrange their lives to not need a car at all. And Minneapolis winters? Forget walking/biking unless you like frostbite. Even if there's good mass transit, that doesn't go everywhere, all the time. I can imagine living in a situation where I didn't need a car for my daily trip to work. I've done it in Chicago. But I can't imagine not having a car at all. It would just be too inconvenient. And if I own a car, I need to be able to park it somewhere. And if that arrangement is too expensive or impossible downtown, I will live in the suburbs.

tw04 8y ago

>The result of terrible city planning starting in the mid century that is going to be expensive and difficult to undo. 2040 is a good plan that will fix this. Or the result of people that want a yard and a house that isn't 4ft from their neighbor. No plan is going to fix the fact that not everyone wants to live downtown.

sjg007 8y ago
You can choose to live outside the city and commute in.. there is light rail and the metro bus park and ride system. That + work remote makes it pretty reasonable. I imagine they will expand the light rail too.