NOW COMPLETE
FORMAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
regarding
RiverFIRST: A Park Design Proposal
and Implementation Framework for the Minneapolis Upper Riverfront
September 22 – November 6, 2011
4 Things You Need to Know
- The Minneapolis Park Board is considering a proposal for new parks along the North and Northeast sides of the Upper Riverfront.
> View or download the full draft proposal
> View or download separately the RiverFIRST Executive Summary (pdf) - The proposal recommends that the Park Board partner with the City of Minneapolis and other government and non-profit partners to develop five new green and public spaces within five years.
- The Park Board has actively sought public input during each phase of proposal development and is now asking you to share your thoughts about the five proposed new parks during the public comment period, September 22 – November 6, 2011.
- You can read the proposal and/or the executive summary on this page, where you can also submit your comments. You can also view a reference copy of the proposal and submit comments at any Minneapolis Parks recreation center or Park Board headquarters, 2117 West River Road.
Formal comment period closed November 6, 2011.
Thank you!
I am extremely excited about this amazing concept. What a way to help vitalize our north side as well as makign Mpls. an even more desireable place to live and play. And what an honor to the great Mississippi! I am already so proud to live in such a vibrantly green city. This will just enhance it even more.
Save Psycho Suzi’s and don’t ruin their patio!
I love the outdoors and would like to see more recreational use along this stretch of the river. There are several issues with this idea, $175 million being one of them.
What becomes of the shorline where the grade is steep and there is no room for a path and beach. Take Psycho Suzi’s for example. This would create a drastic erosion issue. What becomes of thier new deck? Are we going to reinforce the hill side with foam?
Does the city really think that homeowners and business owners are in favor of loosing thier private beach and backyard? I wouldn’t want strangers walking/biking through my riverfront, using my dock, stealing from my boat and litering on my yard.
A seven acre park in the old lumber yard is a great idea. People will figure out how to get there without destroying private property along the river.
Foam bogs? I’m sure they will look great, for a year. They will never last. Freeze/thaw and current will put these “green” islands right where they belong; down the damn and into New Orleans. Maybe the homeless who will inhabit the islands will get a free ride to more desirable weather conditions.
$175 million. Can’t we come up with a better way to spend the money? Fix the parks we currently have. Hire more park employees. Purchase a weed whip so the overgrown mess can be cut around the south side of Gluek park. We can’t maintain what we have now, so lets build more.
I encourage the people of Northeast to speak up before some out of state park planning board turns our town into an amusement park.
X2! Northeast Resident! I especially love the big drawn out oh boy website! The funding paragraph sound like the money is just lying around we just have to hire a consulting team to find it! Come on america the money comes from your wallet.
175 million! Wake up people! It’s 2011. Time to stop the ridiculous spending!
Psycho Suzi’s is a fine example of how the private sector can do a nice job and hopefully profit!
I think the city of Mpls. should develop the river front, but it shouldn’t be so focused on parks and trails. It should be about residence and commerce (not industrial commerce). Let it be a place to generate taxes for the city’s coffers, not be the most valuable land around and be a drag on the city’s money. Parks are great and it’s what helps makes Mpls. a wonderful city to live in. Though we need create a river front for all to use, with a Marina, Restaurants, Hotels, Retail, single family homes, & Dense population homes. We should not be running trails through peoples property, we should be letting people develop that property to create taxable land.
Parks drastically increase the value of the surrounding properties. In a saturated market that can barely support further residential or commercial development, using parks to raise current land values and catalyze future growth is by far the best option.
I’d advise posting the plan in standard pdf form in addition to the existing system. Your high tech system seems to be crashing this morning.
Hi, Brad – thanks for letting us know. The original report (a pdf) is over 150MB – too large to upload directly to the site. SlideShare has been a good solution for us in the past, but not this time, unfortunately.
We’re working on reformatting for a more manageable file size and will get it posted as quickly as possible.
Sorry for the trouble! And I’ll drop another reply when we get it fixed.
-Janette
This is a great idea and I fully support it. I wish this project would continue down river pass the U of M.
Dear Team,
Thank you for your work on this project.
I am writing about multiple properties on the west side of Marshall that are currently on the market.
Public acquisition of the lands underneath several low rise light industrial buildings would enhance adjacent neighborhoods overnight and spur development and tax base on the east side of Marshall where there is more space. Clearly, all along the river banks and lake shores in the rest of the city and in St. Paul, most citizens feel a stronger connection to our natural aquatic amenities because of free public access.
I would like to know why this has not been near the top of your list when there are willing sellers and low prices.
Sincerely,
Michael Romens
Minneapolis has become the city it is in part because over a hundred years ago, the movers and shakers decided to set aside our existing parkland. This new plan may rival their vision. I grew up in the former Mississippi Courts, at 49th Avenue and Lyndale Avenue North, and I was thrilled when my former home was turned into North Mississippi Regional Park. At age 62, I hope I live long enough to see this new plan done also. Count me as a supporter, and if you have to raise my taxes, I’ll pay the extra gladly.
It’s great and wonderful to keep developing parks, but my concern is that the parks already developed be kept up. The Park Board seems to lack money to keep up what it already has.
No one wants to be viewed as a park hater. So let me start with I LOVE PARKS! But I think there needs to be a public discussion about where the money is going to come from to build these parks. Once the parks are built how will they affect the existing buisness or residential areas that are already in these areas? As “Steve” in a previous email states “parks drastically increase the property value of existing homes and buisness”. But, what he fails to mention is that history has shown time and time again increased property value = increased property taxes. And lets not forget the “improvement transportation tax” which was implemented in July 2009 which increased our sales tax to 7.775% in Minneapolis. There is no doubt in my head that we, Minneapolis, will see another increase in its taxes to pay for these parks. So buisnesses are forced to do one of two things …..increase prices or take a substantial hit on their margins and potentially go out of buisness. Concerning residents, all ready existing residents now unable to afford their property taxes or the food and drink at their local watering hole will be expected to forclose their homes and/or move from their existing neighborhoods. Now don’t get me wrong I am not saying keep things as they are and never try to improve neighborhoods I just think we need to re-examin history and make sure there is some sort of protection for the people that are already here.
Second: The propsal argues there should be public acess all up and down the river. I would argue that unlimited acess to the river would be an extreme security risk for all currently owne private access points . Public Marina’s offer one access point in which security can continuosly monitor. Being able to access the river at any point becomes extremly difficult to maintain proper security. You are also putting the already existing buisnesses and residents at a much greater risk of crime and resulting in an increase of their security measures. If everything is open to the public its not people that have been welcomed to these residents homes or guests visiting an establishment its anyone at any time that can be on the easment that runs through their property. Increase security= more money and the potential of more problems and more vandalism.
I am not saying NO PARKS…but what I am asking is for the Minnesota Parks and recreation board to work with the already existing residents and commerical properties. Recognize the hard work that has been put into make themselves a safe, profitable and desirable “destination place” and a staple within their community. REALLY LISTEN to them and don’t just bulldoze through them just so you can get “your way”.
I love this idea and it will definitely influence whether I decide to stay and raise my family in Camden where I’ve lived for more than 13 years or move to the suburbs, as my wife and I often discuss. My suggestion/wish is that we get some businesses up toward the Camden side near Shingle Creek. Camden is as safe as any area in Minneapolis and is very affordable, but I’ve had people tell me they would not consider living there for the sole reason that there are no businesses. In nearly every other area of Minneapolis there are neighborhood coffee shops, restaurants, bars, salons, convenience stores, etc. This is almost non-existent up here. There are recent success stories such as Papa’s and Victory 44, which show that this neighborhood can sustain quality venus and even attract people to come here. It’s a vicious cycle, I know, poverty & urban flight is followed by loss of business, and the cycle continues. Here’s a great opportunity to revitalize this area and make it an attractive place to live.
I agree 100%. Camden definately needs more businesses!
I think this is a wonderful idea for North Mpls. and the river. It’s about time that the north side has parks and trails along the Mississippi. We should use the river like so many other cities that are along the Mississippi do. It’ a treasure lets start using it!
Looks good. I’m excited about bringing the Northside to the river. One thing: in executive summary for the Fairview section, it is 26th and 28th *Avenues* N.
I think that this proposal is a great idea, while not every detail is perfect this part of the river is probably one of the most under utilized bodies of water in the area. Every other lake and navigable body of water in the area are used extensively for recreation. If this proposal only increases the use of the river it will be worth the 175 million or whatever the price ends up being. The increases in property value and taxes easily will make up for this price, I would guess that this will be a win/win investment for everyone. My number one addition/suggestion would be making sure that there are places for public access for boats, kayaks etc.
Looking forward to this project.
Dear Park Board,
I am a taxpayer, and an avid bicyclist. So, first, how is it that all this money is available, when all levels of government are squealing about no funding. If indeed Mpls is overflowing with money, then this project can be considered.
Second, since I commute along Washington Av and 2nd St N the whole length of this project, some 200 days out of the year, I urge you to include some APPEALING bike paths. For me, I’m interested on the west side of the river. We need to likn the path that goes by your Park Board offices on West River Road with the one in Webber Park. Then we need to advertize a super Grand Rounds route! But these trails need to appeal by having minimal street crossings.
Is it too late to go under the Lowry Av bridge approach?
Thanks.
More green space, fewer buildings. More gardens, less turf grass. More native plants, fewer cultivars.
An amazing concept, on all levels. Naysayers scoff at the price and point to the recession, but their views are short-sighted. In hard times, governments turn time and time again to spending on infrastructure, parks, trails and natural resources, as this directly creates jobs, opens up opportunities for private spending and increases the health of the population. RiverFirst promises to promote a green industry along the river, create more jobs, build healthier neighborhoods and increase area tourism. We have seen revitalized areas improve economically time and time again. There is no reason this area would not do the same. What’s more, there is proof that “naturalizing” and “revitalizing” industrial or depressed areas can fend off crime, as the area becomes more popular, frequented and even policed.
Having addressed the economic boon of something like this, I think it’s also important to appreciate the proposal from a philosophical perspective. There is nothing that represents Minneapolis more than the notion of a clean, usable Mississippi….one that is both functional (allowing for industry, barge traffic and the like) and beautiful. In a world of rapid industrialization and rampant development, it is rare to create space for nature. The idea of restoring wetlands and native vegetation, building floating islands and merging green space with commerce and neighborhoods is a step in the right direction. I think it is something everybody can and should stand behind.
As regards the cost issue, it should be possible to break this project into various stages, each with its own funding and timeline. That will bring this idea to life piecemeal, rather than having it all wait until proper funding is secured. A serious fraction of funding could come from the Lessard Heritage Council, which designates money for parks and trails.
Hoping this idea comes to life.
/shawn
cashburton@aol.com
A recession is in fact a great time to invest in infrastructure projects — labor and materials can be had at a bargain, and have a disproportionate effect on consumers’ incomes at large than they do in flush times. Just one of many reasons to pursue this project.
I like the idea of more parkland along the river, though I wonder how funding will be found.
I encourage people to think about this project from the long-term perspective.
What will be great fifty or on hundred years from now?
My hope is that as much wildlife habitat as possible can be cultivated and that the plan includes places where people can quietly reflect and restore themselves close to trees and clean water.
This is a truly exciting proposal. One of the things are early city planners got right was to reserve so much of our water fronts for public use. This continues that remarkable and unusual tradition. It is a lot of money and that means a lot of jobs. We are still reaping the benefits of the WPA and CCC projects of the 30′s. This will be at least as valuable.
I just ask that we don’t forget about the forlorn little block of Main St between Hennepin and 1st Ave NE. Currently it has two lanes and a turning lane in both directions and a very pedistrian-hostile environment. It would serve its traffic needs just as well with one fewer lane in both directions and leave room for people, bikes, and trees.
I am thrilled by the ideas presented in the Riverfront Initiative. This initiative will not only enhance the recreational opportunities and community pride for people around here, it will bring greater awareness and appreciation for the Mississippi and the eco-services it provides (from drinking water to a migratory corridor for 40% of our nation’s waterfowl). What an amazing resource we have running through the heart of these neighborhoods–it is time we treasure it.
I’m 100% in favor of these improvements. Minneapolis is doing a great job of creating spaces that draw people from the region. We live in Minnetonka and use our bikes nearly every weekend to go into Minneapolis. And many of these trips are along the river (headed to Sea Salt). Creating better park/trail infrastructure to in North/Northeast will give more options and draw more people into Minneapolis. $175 million is CHEAP in government budgets; for prospective, the proposed bridge in Stillwater is $670 million!
I particularly enjoy the idea of connecting the bicycle pathways along the river as well as creating more options for cross country skiing. The transformation is an important vision for city growth and recreational areas for decades to come.
Totally agree with more cross-country skiing!
This proposal borders on criminal. At a time when the city is laying off police and firefighters to squander money on parks, bicycles and fountains is reckless. (acting with a willfull disregard for human life)
I propose that the city take the budget for this project and divide it equally between the police fire and the sherriffs office.
I think the amount of work and effort really shows in the level of
detail given in the packet with all the maps and future views. I am
pleased with the overall approach and the identification of the
timelines.
As a neighborhood resident of the Northside I particularly want to
support the first phase of the Farview Park Expansion and the
Riverfront Trails. Just getting access to more of the riverfront will
make a big difference. I also support the Scherer Park initiative as
that is something that I would use. I believe it is important to
include opportunities for food consumption such as kiosks and
restaurants. Also the Northside Wetlands Park and Bio Havens are
important to mitigate our human impacts on water quality. The
Northside Wetlands Park also appears to have the opportunity for food
and other public amenities. I also support the sustainability of
these projects with the wireless access, solar energy to fuel some of
the improvements, and the use of recycled materials and sustainable
design.
Thanks for all your hard work.
Sincerely,
Deborah Bauknight
Minneapolis
I whole-heartedly support the vision of this proposal. There is definitely a need for greater connectivity along the river, and the mobility analysis here shows that accessibility would be provided for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. As a resident of Nicollet Island, I can attest that going North on a bike for me is a challenge, while a I feel I have a whole river (and city) to explore going south.
I also LOVE the idea of the downtown park. I have been baffled for years why Minneapolis has so many ugly surface parking lots. Turning the lot across from the beautiful new Minneapolis Central library would create a civic space that would create value for decades to come.
I could not tell what the giant wing-like structure was in the new Boom Island Park — is it a skating rink? I am a little skeptical of such a large structure, but like the overall vision for the park to extend north to the industrial space, and to be more vibrant/useable in general.
Thanks to the design team for great work — I am looking forward to seeing the projects grow in the next 0-5 years!
It’s my wish that the MRDI would demand that the University of Minnesota should annex the Pillsbury milling blocks adjacent to two zero-emissions facilities there on the riverfront.
Preserving the visual heritage of the milling sites and elevators is best left in the hands of the “U”, rather than another failing real estate developer. A noiseless, odorless, emission-free, bio-energy demonstration site (as they’ve done and the kind we want to see) is what I’d propose.
Purified water is what should be enjoyed on the way to the river’s edge. Solutions to environmental quality problems should be demonstrated. That is, gaining clean energy, water, and air, and building good-paying jobs that will last. I can’t believe people would spend a billion dollars in public funds for a stadium and leave the kids a river with treated sewage.
How it’s made is just as important as how much money is made. Let’s do it right and let everyone else copy our success.
I can’t say enough nice things about this plan. The Mississippi north of downtown is such a waste as it is now. Capitalizing on its potential could do as much for Minneapolis as the new Embarcadero did for San Francisco, Navy Pier did for Chicago, and the High Line is beginning to do for New York. I envision our river as not only a place we as residents go to recreate, recharge and congregate, but as a destination on par with MOA, Valleyfair and the Zoo. I hope this project can hit the ground running, creating jobs both in the short term in construction projects, and in the long term as more flock to our city as there is more to do and see!
I have attended several of the presentations on this project and found the design and the process very thoughtful. This design will tie many neighborhoods together that are difficult to access currently. I believe the parks really are a beating heart for a community. I live downtown and I’ve seen the riverfront community and pedestrians grow with each project along the river. I support this vision and hope the process will continue toward development!
There should be a large work of art at the 45 degree latitude point near the Grain Belt Brewerey. Something as massive as the St. Louis gateway arch could be planned to be built when the economy is better. Until then, local artists could be commisioned to mark the points on both the east and west shores. I would like to see a nationally recognised iconic structure, as unique to our city as the gateway arch is to the St. Louis Mississippi River waterfront. The river is narrower in Minneapolis than St. Louis so we could span the river. I like the idea of a 4 cornered pyramid “arch” with 45 degree sides marking the spot. There could even be urban gardens hanging from the structure, or a viewing platform at the apex. If space is reserved at the intersection of the Mississippi and the 45th parallel for a future project, it’s boundaries could be marked by smaller scale artworks that fit the current tight budget. It could become our iconic gateway to the upper Mississippi lake country.
Riverfront parkland is no better than the water that runs through it. Sewage treated at digestion temperatures upstream and those below should never enter the river at all. UMN studies have brought new insights and technologies to light that need to be demonstrated in ways that turn this waste into energy, without odor, noise, or biological pollution entering our children’s safe play areas. These are basic design requirements.
400-500 grain elevator silos stand in Minneapolis, most within six blocks of the university, and should be preserved as part of our visual heritage in a useful and responsible way. I should hope that they would be converted into bioreactors to clean these wastes and prevent them from entering our riverpark system. As a model for others, especially upstream, this would tie up the loose ends of environmental responsibility and city livability.
This is a terrific proposal with great public involvement & design. Moving forward during this hard economic time will help with community development and jobs, and is a good time for public projects that can be accomplished more affordably then if delayed. I look forward to seeing these recommendations carried out over the next 5 years.
About Psycho Suzi’s, a great neighborhood place, my take is that the new trails will only help bring sustained business there (even if they require some cooperation to adapt for the install). This would bring in walk & bike traffic, stopping in for refreshment.
I absolutely love this plan. I was nervous that the Farview land bridge would be scaled back too much or dropped entirely. But I think this proposal strikes all the right notes in regards to the scope and timing of the redesign. North Minneapolis needs the same kinds of community connections to the river as other parts of the city, and this project goes a long way towards making that happen.
I have several reactions to this plan, many of which are encapsulated in the comments that have already been posted. As a Northeast resident, I appreciate that a strong park system helps to develop strong communities. I support extending the fantastic park and trail system that starts at the Plymouth Bridge heading south.
But as a taxpayer, I too worry about the cost. The Plymouth Bridge has been closed to vehicle traffic for over a year, and the Lowry Bridge is not yet finished after years of being closed. If funding is not available for those projects, I wonder where the funding will come from for this project. I had the pleasure of taking a riverboat cruise a few weeks ago, and I speculate that it will take hundreds of millions of dollars to reclaim industrial property into parks. The proposal contains plenty of artist’s depictions and photos from other states and countries, but it does not contain many photos of the site currently, nor does it contain detailed information on how much it would cost in today’s dollars. Even though this is a routine political tactic, I am still disappointed because this proposal does not provide enough information to comment fully. Even without this detailed information, it is clear that the long term vision will be very expensive.
I oppose the Downtown Gateway Park because of the high site acquisition costs and because it is not necessary in the overall development. The rationale given in the proposal is to connect the library to the river, which is nonsensical. There is no rational purpose to connect the library to the river. The alternative rationale seems to be that there used to be a park there. This argument fails because the better use for this property is to generate tax revenue without a serious negative impact on the environment.
I would stress to the decision makers that the projects need to be completed at a manageable cost. Aside from the Downtown Gateway Park, the other parks in the 0-5 year proposal deserve careful consideration.
I support the RiverFIRST proposal 100%. I am glad to see the riverfront trails as a top priority. I think significant attention should be directed toward the development of west side riverfront trails between Broadway Ave. and the Camden Bridge to ensure that they become a reality within 5 years. I would further support a more aggressive timeline to develop west side riverfront trails between Broadway Ave. and the Lowry Bridge within 2-3 years. The riverfront trails are the key to this plan and it is essential that they are developed in the very near future to maintain momentum implementing the RiverFIRST proposal. I am afraid that if the riverfront trails do not become a reality within 5 years that the RiverFIRST plan as a whole will loose energy and become forever stalled.
Also, I think a pedestrian/cycling component should be added to the BNSF bridge. This could be a knot bridge or a trail on the bridge. This is something that should be aggressively pursued as the bridge already exists near trail connections (18th Ave. trail on the east and riverfront trails on the west, south of Ole Olson Park).
Finally, I think the concrete domes at the Upper River Harbor Terminal could be rehabbed to be something very cool. They should not be torn down. They could be converted into a globe shaped “Planet-earth pavilion” (see Ahmedabad’s Science City in India), a painted globe sculpture, an amphitheater, an interactive laser light show space, or many other artistic structures. The domes are a gem.
Thank you for considering these comments regarding the RiverFIRST proposal.
Jim
We just completed our Old Highland to Old Man River Outing yesterday afternoon and I would like to bring up an alternative for the planners to the crossing of the I 94 freeway at Plymouth Ave for a more pedestrian/biking friendly access to the river.
When I 94 was being constructed, in the late 70′s, along with Lynn Park between Plymouth and 18th Ave N the city was proposing a greenway on 16th Ave N between Wirth Park and the River. There plans for Lynn Park included Hall park which was split by Lyndale with a pedestrian/bike bridge to connect the park which has park space and tot lots to serve both sides of the development. The plans for the freeway, at the time, also included a pedestrian/bridge to cross the freeway and connect to the river.
On our walking tour we went through Lynn Park and pointed out that the existing park path, to this day, includes an earthen ramp off to one side that leads up to the freeway noise wall that is maintained and is part of Hall Park. From the top of the ramp one can look straight across to 16h Ave N. between Washington and 2nd Ave N. at the south end of the Colony Gas station.
There is already public ownership, Hall Park on the West side and the right of way for Washington Ave on the East side. To connect the two we just have to have the feds and State complete I 94 by constructing the bridge that was on there original plans.
Our walking tour included crossing I 94 at both Plymouth and Broadway neither one of which is a pleasant experience on foot and less so by bike.
The coal pile, garbage heap, shipping containers and general industrial “ick” running on the west side of the river from the nicely, (yet economically?) landscaped area (just grass and a trail) down by Broadway Pizza all they way up to North Mississippi Regional Park have to go no matter what. If the money to finance it disappears, then at very least buy as much of the riverfront land as possible on the west side of the river, plant grass and lay down a nice bike trail. Believe me, looking across the river from Psycho Suzie’s is not a pretty sight now and even the absence of the industrial would be a huge improvement. As far as I can tell there isn’t any residential or “amenity-like” business on the west side of the river. DO save the Psycho Suzie’s area… that business is a great asset to the community (even if you do have to park five blocks away because it is so popular!).
We need this. I love the plans and it sounds like a wonderful place to hang out… Maybe a bit too “touchy-feely, tree-huggy” than I would go in some areas, but overall it is an excellent plan. Nothing wrong with touch-y feely, tree-huggy, but would that boggy area be a good thing in the long run or would it be overrun with mosquitos?
Great job! I am very supportive of the RiverFirst design and particularly supportive of the priority projects that, hopefully, will be completed in the 0 to 5 year time span. The completion of the Riverfront trail system and the Farview Park Connections will give long over due river access to an underserved neighborhood.
I also wonder, with the recent discovery of Invasive carp DNA, if the closure of the Ford Dam locks (thereby eliminating barging) would then allow the trails on the west side of the river to be built on land, saving considerable dollars and enhancing the west side river trails. It should also allow full development of the Northside Wetlands Park and create more value for the Upper Harbor terminal.
This cannot happen soon enough. Tear down the St Anthony Lock and Dam first, then rid of the tiny few businesses that exploit and pollute the shores of the Mississippi. We the People own these shores, and lease them from our children and their children ad infinitium.
Wonderful design — River First. Its time we had a plan that utilizes the quality of the great Mississippi River. It is time, however, for the heavy industry on the river to get creative and plan for the future of their industry. They have had the benefit of the river usage for a very long time. Its now time to change.
The Above the Falls Citizen Advisory Committee (AFCAC) has been charged with advocating for the implementation of the Above the Falls Master Plan since its adoption in 2000. The Master Plan plan supports the long range vision of continuous, contiguous parks and trails along both sides of the Mississippi River in North and Northeast Minneapolis. We are pleased that the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) established the Mississippi Riverfront Development Initiative (MRDI) after the Minneapolis Parks Foundation and other partners completed the Minneapolis Riverfront Design Competition. The resultant RiverFIRST Park Design and Implementation Framework for the Minneapolis Upper Riverfront (RiverFIRST) substantially supports and strengthens the Above the Falls long range vision and provides guidance on implementation priorities and phasing.
For example, RiverFIRST:
- gives first priority to completing the 6-mile riverfront trail and bikeway system in North and Northeast Minneapolis, which is at the heart of the Above the Falls plan. We have two suggestions regarding this priority. A current project, planning/implementing trail and bikeway connections to and from the new Lowry Bridge, currently under construction, is paramount to fully achieving this vision within 5 years. We also urge MRDI to support continuation of the pattern used throughout the rest of the city, in regard to land uses next to lakes and the river – i.e. public, green space with trails along the water’s edge, with a parkway (or parkway-like) road bordering the public space (which would be Marshall St. N.E. on the east side). We do not support any private homes within this linear park, and do support some hospitality/recreational uses, with public access – and agree that a minimal 70% park/green space is reasonable.
- prioritizes the 26th Ave N Greenway Extension and improvements to 28th Ave N to provide long needed connections to the river from North Minneapolis, specifcally Farview Park. We suggest that the connection at the riverfront should provide recreational and cultural amenities for residents and visitors.
- prioritizes the Scherer Park District. We suggest that this park design be integrated with the adjacent (Boom Island) and nearby (Grain Belt, Sheridan Memorial Park, and BF Nelson) parkland.
- prioritizes reuse of the Upper Harbor Terminal (UHT). However, we think more work needs to be done with Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) on transition land uses at the UHT that integrate park, trail, ecological systems and development that enhances and benefits from a riverfront park when the UHT closes.
The merger of RiverFIRST and CPED’s Above the Falls Policy Review and Implementation Study are critically important to implement the vision for parks, trails and anticipated land use change along the upper river. AFCAC represents neighborhood, business, and environmental interests and expects to be fully engaged in this process to update the Above the Falls Master Plan. AFCAC looks forward to continued discussions with MPRB, the City, and other partners to continue the path of transformative land use change and establishing a continuous, contiguous park and trail system along the upper river.
Sincerely,
Mary Jamin Maguire, Co-Chair
AFCAC
.
First, I want to say how impressed I have been with the design team–they have been very open to listening to public imput from everyone in the community. Unfortunately, the opportunites for Near North and particularly communities of color to shape this design have been fairly nonexistent. And the results reflect that–not much is suggested for the Near North area of the river. And while there have been challenges to getting input due to the tornado, that should have increased to efforts to get input; it did not. In spite of specific representations of meetings to happen in Near North, that were also promised by the Park Commisioners, they did not happen. That pattern needs to change as these projects move forward.
Second–we don’t have a lot of specific information needed to analyze these proposals. For example, the trails don’t reflect any cost of getting easements or acquistion of land–rather a big factor.
All that being said, lots of great ideas and innovative concepts! A downtown park should be far down on the priority list –the downtown portion of the riverfront has been receiving huge public investment–it’s time the rest of the upper river gets the main attention and funding.