Get ready for more crime, traffic, and deterioration of the neighborhood for that is what always happens when misguided social scientists try to integrate the poor with the middle class. Moving poor people into nice neighborhoods will not make the poor smarter, richer, or less crime-prone. All it will do is drive the successful middle class away from the old neighborhood to get away from their new, less-desirable neighbors.
15
How are duplexes and triplexes going to resolve this crisis? Make a change? Then make a change that matters - this is a cosmetic bandaid vs allowing apartment buildings....waste of a vote....
4
When the highest and best use changes from single-unit residential to multi-unit residential there will be unintended consequences. Property values will change to reflect investors purchasing for income production primarily rather than owner-occupancy. Owner-occupants will sell to investors at prices that reflect greater density. In the long run this will create more residential housing which is greatly needed. But the character and appeal of the neighborhoods involved will be forever changed.
15
Reading some comments, some are apparently not clear on what SFR, mult-plex, and apartments are. FNMA, etc. count up to four units as the same as SFR for rate determination. Obviously, the buyer is expected to live there as owner occupied and rent the others.
Also obviously, is that an owner can leave in short order, thus making the four plex an apartment building while repaying a loan at less than commercial rates. I think as long as the owner lives there, the quality of the tenants would mostly be fine, and good neighbors. But once gone (legal after one year, IIRC), it's just another transient, uninvested apartment building.
All SFR's are required to have off street parking, probably everywhere. Will these four plexes? I doubt it.
No mention of the condo option. That seems to be a solution to accomplishing what the council intends w/o the specter of renters. (Hey, I've been one most of my life; I know the reality.)
As a life long Dem, I find the reason for this action reasonably, even if driven by White Guilt. But the execution is another story.
6
Like many states, Minnesota has a long history of racism built into systems like zoning, including redlining and racial segregation that have kept people of color on the fringes. In Minneapolis we used restrictive deed covenants, racially isolated public housing projects, and discriminatory rental and real estate practices to segregate our city. (I know Minneapolis (Mpls) is not alone in having a long history of policies that have overtly or covertly promoted greater wealth for whites at the direct expense of people of color and Indigenous people.) Simply put, municipal zoning and home ownership policies directly impact a family's ability to accumulate wealth over time.
That's why I, a long-time Mpls resident, am so grateful that city leaders are providing genuine leadership in proactively reversing past policies like these, that they are looking out for the interests of ALL in our community. And when ALL do better, our community as a whole will thrive more. I also urge the city to work on creating strategies to prevent disproportionate displacement of people of color in future projects (see, e.g., the Equitable Development Scorecard).
So many are asking, "how can I help reduce systemic racism?" Here is one way: support plans like this one. While they are as intentional as past ones, they are now specifically on the side of fairness and equity. Our history may not be that great, but our future can be.
57
Seattle has “Urban Villages,” areas close to transit that were rezoned for high density. Result in my Ballard area— lots of apartment buildings, but with higher prices. Older, cheaper rental homes and apartments demolished and lower income residents forced out. City leaders continue to insist that soon density increases will help low income residents, but soon hasn’t arrived. Seattle City Council would love to follow Minneapolis on this issue. Whether it works to make cities more affordable is questionable, but developers sure like it, and the city collects a lot more money in property taxes.
13
I wonder if all the politicians that are behind this change will have multi-family housing units in their neighborhoods?
16
Sounds wonderful but...I hope the change will be limited to “owner occupied” housing.
These owners will have skin in the game and will be more likely to maintain their property. Investors/absentee owners will not be concerned about the impact on the neighborhood.
9
As a 51 year resident of Minneapolis, I don't think the 2040 plan is really quite what any of the proponents or opponents make it out to be.
The advocates make it out to be about a general lack of affordable housing, but nearly all of their focus is on the southwestern quadrant of the city, which also happens to be the most generally desirable (lakes, parks, on-trend restaurants and shops, low crime, high-quality neighborhoods). It's also home to the Uptown neighborhood, which had been the go-to spot for 20-somethings looking for a cheap apartment, a little bohemianism and a quick trip downtown to work on the bus. Uptown has gotten popular (tons of new apartment/condo construction in the last 10-15 years), so popular that rents have skyrocketed.
Most of this debate is driven by young people that can't afford to live in Uptown anymore, or pay a lot to do it. What they want is to live in the neighborhood they want at the price they want to pay, and they're looking longingly at the single family neighborhoods south of Uptown as a greenfield for developers to built the apartments they think will drive down rents.
It won't work -- development is high finance, and they're mostly too smart to build rent-declining surpluses. Worse, it may be counter-productive, as the residential areas 2040 plan activists are targeting are really the core of why Minneapolis is a desirable urban area.
17
Any new zoning scheme would have to build in appropriate height restrictions, ample off-street parking, wide setbacks. well-controlled trash handling. and noise control both during and after construction. Diversity is welcome; destruction of a hard-earned way of life by building inappropriate structures is not.
15
I was born in Minneapolis and our parents former 1600 square foot home that is two blocks from Lake Harriet is now worth 500K, twice more than the price of my comparable house in an upscale Detroit suburb. I could not afford that house now if I were to start over as a head of household, which feels depressing because I love(d) it there. Meanwhile, this MPLS neighborhood feels a lot different than it did in the late 70s when it was a mixed income and our block was white working class. I attributed the new feel to income inequality and regard MPLS to be a little Paris; the city (or parts of it) are more or just as desirable as the suburbs. Perhaps more high density will help with income inequality and MPLS can be an American experiment. I am skeptical--but when/if happens, sign me up I'm moving back.
6
Allowing three residential units per lot doesn't automatically have to translate into a triplex. Converting a basement into a rental apartment and building an accessory dwelling unit above a detached garage keeps the scale of an existing neighborhood intact and can be undertaken by homeowners themselves.
9
Are we sure density lowers rents? I hear Manhattan is pretty densely populated and not particularly cheap.
20
The part about neighborhood groups is kind of misleading. It reads like Minneapolis neighborhood groups as a whole opposed this plan. As someone who works for a neighborhood association in Minneapolis, I can assure you that was not the case.
5
This move is just the first step. Watch for a use of eminent domain directed toward single-family houses, because affordable housing. It will happen.
6
For those opposing this, what is your plan? We have too many people. We can't continue to bull doze forests and tear up farmlands for suburban sprawl. Eventually there will be a breaking point. We need to more adequately use our space and create livable cities that can accommodate more people. Our population is rising and families living in 3-5 bedroom suburban homes on half an acre of land is not the answer.
12
I hope this is done thoughtfully. I lived in downtown Denver almost two decades ago, and at the time, the older, more vibrant neighborhoods had single family homes next to multifamily homes, next to small, architecturally lovely apartment complexes. Those neighborhoods were pretty economically and racially diverse. Meanwhile, in adjacent suburbs, we saw the opportunistic destruction of historic (minority) neighborhoods through new development - in the form of improperly zoned ultra-modern, multi-unit infill.
There are many historic neighborhoods in Minneapolis. I wonder how or if preservation ordinances will guide the new construction. Also, as our local preservationists say, "the most sustainable building is the one that's already built" - where does sustainability fit into this conversation?
12
For anyone reading this & wondering how you can get your city to the same place, might I suggest this local article.
http://wedgelive.com/2018/12/the-whole-story-on-minneapolis-2040.html
4
@Mike A very interesting article to get some background on the law.
I was born and raised in South Minneapolis, left for college in my late teens, and have lived in five U.S. cities since -- two mid-sized quality-of-life places, plus three large coastal cities. Minneapolis is BY FAR the most progressive and forward-thinking. I just don't see hordes of white people decamping from the neighborhoods I grew up in because someone builds a duplex next door. First, because the duplex next door will probably be expensive, just like the houses surrounding it. But also because many (if not most) neighborhoods within the city support the kind of community -- locally-owned coffee places, restaurants, bookstores and shops --that just aren't on offer in the suburbs. Plus, you can't move Lake of the Isles and Lake Harriet to the suburbs.
I trust that this is the first step in a much larger process of figuring out solutions to the kind of critical housing challenges that many U.S. cities are facing. Kudos to my hometown for doing something really bold.
27
I live in a small suburban town that used to be all single family homes. Over the past couple of decades it has become about half two-family and duplex units. This put a strain on the infrastructure, particularly the streets in town. There used to be an ordinance requiring cars to be off the street between the hours of 2am-5am. That is now impossible as there are way too many cars for the number of driveways. There are always cats parked on both sides of the street making navigating thru town a slow and tedious job. And when it snows its a real mess. Because cars don't come off the road for the plows, our sheets are narrow lanes for weeks that can't accommodate two-way traffic.
11
@Sneeral. One more point- the multi-unit dwellings have greatly increased the number of renters in town. This has coincided with a noticeable decrease in the maintenance of the properties. The yards aren't as neat. The homes aren't kept up as well. There is no pride of ownership and most people aren't inclined to spend on maintenance or improvements because they don't have equity in the property.
11
@Sneeral And clearly, that are the main issues our nation has to address: some yards aren’t as neat as they used to be. Some houses aren’t as well maintained. Not ours thank God, but still.
Question: where do these cars go when you don’t maintain single-family dwellings? To one of these numerous cities where free parking is abundant and rivers flow with milk and honey?
6
@Bob Robert I love it when someone takes the attitude "because another issue may be more dire, you have no right to raise that issue."
Diminishing quality of life is a real issue for people living in an area where it's occurring, bob bob.
Where do those cars go when you don't maintain single-family dwellings? I don't know. Ideally, to an area that was built and planned for multi-dwelling housing. Simply stuffing more people into an area that was never meant to support such a capacity isn't much of a solution.
4
I am not sure yet what to think of this plan, but what most coverage, including this in the NY Times, ignores are the regulations. From what I have read on the Minneapolis website, only lots of a certain size, with in certain areas, can be used for triplexes and duplexes and the heights and size of those buildings are restricted. I imagine there are also some design guidelines. All the coverage makes it seem like this is a develop-whatever-you-like scheme. (I think there area also limitations on pavement coverage for parking areas.) Also, there has been little discussion of the economics behind this--pro and con--other than the dream and nightmare scenarios of the man or woman on the street.
6
I currently live across the river in St. Paul. We too are dealing with density and what our neighborhoods are to look like in the future. My concern is architectural but, more so, a sense of equity. Here in MSP, racial disparities from educational test scores to income to housing are some of the worst in the nation. And yet, again, all the propositions to equalize these factors seem to fall on the cities. Chaska-Chanhassen, White Bear Lake, Minnetonka, Edina, Buffalo, Eagan? People of low income only live in the city? Any inequality out there? Any responsibility to meet the needs of your fellow community members in the greater metropolitan area? No? One lot in those communities could support three times the number of units than in the city and provide access to better schools, jobs (See Amazon) and a healthier way of life – just ask them. And yet, MSP and Minneapolis alone right now, are being asked to shoulder the responsibility and equalize a playing field not solely of their making.
11
@Dguet001 Sounds like a nimby comment. I have lived in White Bear Lake for ten years and Mpls for 25 years. The mayors and city councils of the Twin Cities are finally doing something positive to change the status quo. We have the same problem here in Portland and I welcome the change.
9
It is nice to see a city that doesn’t wallow in the stupid idea that if housing isn’t affordable, it means you need to subsidize it or arm-twist landlords. Glad they understand that you need to allow (if not encourage) the building of more housing. Even if it means changing things that people think work very well.
Hopefully other cities will follow its example! I bet twenty years from now people will stop complaining about apartment blocks and just lead their own life…
10
Cities have a car density problem that needs to be addressed before the wholesale elimination of single-family zoning. Will every single-family tract find room for four cars (plus) off-street parking? Any shared rental units will make it worse.
When the cities lost their core commercial and retail center infrastructure, fast and efficient public transportation for commuting workers and shoppers became obsolete; there is no critical core of commuters with a common destination.
People worry about the neighborhood invasion of "Big-Box Retailers" but the developing Amazon, Walmart , etc. home delivery infrastructure is making a sustainable urban neighborhood economy a pipe dream. Americans are too accustomed to the cost benefits of purchasing in volume.
How does the city change zoning laws to make living in the city desirable for its citizens?
One possibility: Create a central downtown retail and entertainment district by allowing high rise downtown development where upper story units are offered at residential market rates and the lower stories are zoned for affordable housing and for retail and entertainment. Such a district can restore the downtown city core as a transportation hub connected to other neighborhood hubs.
Another possibility: redesign all public transit between neighborhood transportation hubs to be fast and suitable for bicycle, scooter, and shopping cart transport so that car ownership and the congestion it causes would not be a economic necessity.
10
@BRUCE You are talking as if the cars would disappear if you don’t build. They don’t: people just go live elsewhere and bring their cars with them. That whole “what about parking and traffic jams” argument (just like the “renters won’t take care of the area” one) is basically the equivalent of “I want another side of town to deal with that”.
6
@BRUCE: Eliminating single-family zoning does not map to the elimination of single family homes.
“So if you make a particular part of the city homeowners only, then you essentially make that neighborhood restricted to whites,” Ms. Trounstine said.
Trounstine is the racist. Her comment is the only real racist part of the entire article.
In one sentence, she implies that all non-whites are lesser human beings…who are unable to achieve homeownership through hard work and perseverance. Trounstine believes it is only through government help and “zoning changes” that non-whites can succeed.
What a travesty.
15
@rfmd1 If your understanding of what someone said doesn't make any sense, it can also mean that you didn't understand their point...
14
@rfmd1 "In one sentence, she implies that all non-whites are lesser human beings"
umm, no.
2
I have lived in my house in Minneapolis for 20 years. It is a safe city. I have never locked my doors. Will I feel the same if there are apartments on each side of me? Doubtful.
34
Why?
15
So renters are thrives in your view? Does your (biased) perception of safety supersede the needs of others to secure housing?
13
@Sneeral
My guess is there will be more people in the neighborhood they don't know. I live in an urban about 1 mile from my downtown. Residentially it is roughly 60% single family and 40% apartments/condos/multiplexes/large old houses divided up into apartments. While I love living here and generally feel safe, there are definitely enough people moving through the neighborhood I don't know personally that I lock my doors and don't leave bicycles just leaning on the front porch.
12
So our City Council feels good about this but this is what will actually happen--because our entire Metro area, of Minneapolis, St. Paul and the surrounding inner ring suburbs is seeing this: Developers buy the little old ladies' house. They build a beautiful new triplex or duplex that is so large it barely fits on the small, standard city lot. It is lovely, filled with amenities. Expensive amenities. EACH home within the triplex will go for 400,000 or more. The developer is very happy, maybe the little old lady homeowner selling a smaller, dated older home is happy too. The buyers have to shell out just as much money as they would have had to for their own single family home, as all the smaller, cheaper or more dated homes are being sold to manipulative developers, so the young couple moves to a far suburb where they can buy a cheaper home. Brilliant. This is not going to diversify our Minneapolis neighborhoods. Low income housing is NOT what will be built. Neither are wages increasing at many middle class jobs that would help diversify all neighborhoods. But this will make white liberals feel good. And I say that as a white liberal. What absurdity.
89
Its supply and demand. Demand is really high. So if we increase supply by the most basic of economics it'll lower the price. This is high school level stuff. It's not gonna be that tidy but come on...
17
@Nick--I wish it were that easy, but where I live the home prices keep going up, as does the cost of all new construction--whether duplexes, triplexes or even the rental cost of apartments, which is outrageous. Developers are NOT excited to build affordable housing--they have to be mandated to do so.
19
@Nick Ok, but why not build in the exurbs? Why harm the homeowners and taxpayers who have lived in their homes for decades?
8
We were just in Minneapolis, biking it’s beautiful neighborhoods. Everywhere were signs opposing this change, and understandably. This idea of a monotheism of multi-family is nothing but a developer giveaway. Greater Minneapolis is vast and the city’s many neighborhoods varied and distinct. It’s a huge part of what makes the city so appealing. Hopefully the public will fight back and fix this mistake.
27
@Mia Having just left crazy unaffordable San Francisco for Minneapolis three years ago (and having bought a beautiful 400k SFH in Uptown), this comment reeks of the NIMBYism that made San Francisco beautiful but unaffordable for anyone new. Minneapolis needs to focus on being the opposite of NIMBY San Francisco, embracing reasonable and thoughtful development, affordability, and justice over nebulous (and racist and classist in effect) concerns like “neighborhood character.” If half the single family homes in my neighborhood were replaced with triplexes it would still be a lovely place to live!
9
This is a great development and three-unit buildings are hardly going to tower over existing neighbourhoods!
13
"Minneapolis has decided to eliminate single-family zoning, a classification that has long perpetuated segregation. "
Right. Because a single family home can tell what race you are.
When ever the government distorts the free market bad things happen. The city council are a bunch of insane leftist lunatics who are hell bent on ruining the city.
14
@George Orwell
A “Free Market” means allowing the market to do whatever it wants, which means allowing it to build what it wants where it wants - the opposite of zoning laws - so what you are saying makes no sense whatsoever ....
23
@George Orwell You do understand that single family zoning has already distorted the market?
15
Aren’t the single family zoning laws the real example of government distortion? It sounds like a lot of people want to build/buy/rent multi family buildings but the government hasn’t let them til now.
13
This is hilarious!
Real estate interests getting their way by guilt-tripping white liberals into changing zoning regulations to better monetize the remaining parcels.
What a brilliant con job!
48
@K Large local developers criticized the plan. Projects like small multi-family buildings are too small for them to bother with, and they don't see what's in it for them.
This plan will benefit smaller developers, including people who we might not even think of as developers, like individual homeowners, who may want to convert their property to multi-family to cover their expenses as they age, but were previously prohibited from doing so.
This plan makes it more possible for anyone to become a developer, instead of de facto restricting building to ten or so big companies who only build in bulk. That means more competition in the market, which should also benefit consumers.
12
Minneapolis population peaked in 1950 at 522,000, now is at 422,000. been basically flat since 1980, so is it a housing shortage, or Social Engineering by the City to encourage people to move to the city from the suburbs, more property tax, more money to spend on more Social Engineering? The City recently cancelled a fantastic affordable housing plan that could have been built in 2 years, now, the CIty believes they can do it better?
20
@REStroot Your assertion that the population of Minneapolis has been flat since 1980 isn't accurate. In fact, the population of the city has grown by 10% since 2010, outpacing Chicago. The cities current pace of growth hasn't been seen since the Roaring 20s. http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-is-experiencing-a-population-boom-like-the-roaring-twenties/422600314/
11
@Karsten https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/minneapolis-minnesota
SHows population since 1900
2
The moralistic tenor of the housing conversation tends to gloss over a palpable disregard for people who have worked hard in order to live in neighborhoods made up of houses, yards, and owners, as opposed to units, parking lots, and renters. People who prefer detached walls and their own garden boundaries don't deserve to be punished for discriminatory practices of the 1930s. And make no mistake: putting a multi-unit next to a house is not doing the homeowner any favors; In fact, it changes the rules for them after they have made their investment. "Density" brings increased noise, movement, and friction; the idea that there is only upside to this plan is nonsense.
48
If you want to live on a tranquil acreage move to the exurbs. Living in a city comes with all of the negatives of being a city. We can't just keep sprawling.
8
@Nick Pulling the rug out from under stable neighborhoods and owners by changing the rules isn't justified by wished-for ends.
6
@Nick Let them eat cake, eh? Nothing to do with the negatives of being a city.
3
Very interesting article. In Canada we have the same fixation on single family zoning. We don’t have the same race issues as the US, but this rigid zoning notion has become entrenched here too.
Perhaps North Americans associated dense housing with slum housing at the turn of the century and pursued the idea of the grassy yard and picket fence.
Whatever the history, the system has become bad for our physical and mental health. Miles and miles of bland suburban sprawl needing hours of pollution causing commutes.
Neighbourhoods without grocery stores or anything worth walking to. Even neighbourhoods without sidewalks! Why bother when there is no reason to walk.
Coming from a European country, I have always found these North American zoning ideas to be bizarre. There are other zoning ideas out there like allowing the number of residences to be based on total square footage available.
9
@Georgia M Does Canada have bans on new single-family housing in some provinces or some cities? Whenever we visit family in Ontario, I notice all the new construction we drive by is multi-family, including duplex townhouses.
1
@Bob R
My city has a designated list of “infill” neighbourhoods. Generally older neighbourhoods that will allow multi unit (3 or 4 units).
A lot of Canadian cities are working with the “infill” idea. But the single family zone code is still in wide use for new developments- there is a little improvement there too because new developments have to build more “multi” units than in the past.
We live in an older downtown neighbourhood that was on the decline. Quite a few homes were derelict eyesores. Now there are new tidy triplexes and fourplexes instead.
The new places aren’t architectural wonders but they are a huge improvement over what was previously there. Infill works beautifully for declining neighbourhoods.
However, it should be considered that there are a lot of well maintained and lovely affluent neighbourhoods that could possibly look and feel worse with infill denser housing.
4
First major city to approve such a change, but I understand Houston has no zoning at all -- so its not entirely new ground.
Horror stories about office towers next to Gramma's home abound, but I wonder whether there are any positive lessons to be learned about how citizens organize organically without the heavy hand of zoning micro-management.
7
@Signal My grandma was not happy when residential apartments started popping up in her neighborhood, that was basically countryside when she moved in decades ago. She is clinging to a single-family house even though developers are offering fortunes for it, and probably wishes everyone in her neighborhood had been doing the same.
But also, like many grandmas, she went through the war. She's been through way worse than housing density in her neighborhood changing. She'll be fine: let's stop being that worried about a generation that's been through so much worse.
@Signal: Regarding the organic citizen action in Houston, you can find good examples of that with respect to TH densification. If you want to prevent it, you either have to create/enforce private restrictive covenants or convince a majority of your neighbors on your block to do special min lot sizes (essentially temporary spot SF zoning). Both necessitate more active democratic citizen participation than zoning: it's small scale direct democracy type governance. Interestingly, many existing SF areas have decided against putting these voluntary restrictions in place. Anecdotally, this is because TH developers are able to offer more for a lot than someone wanting to maintain the existing house or do a teardown for a SF McMansion. So, for all those that speak of the greedy developers, let's not lose sight of the fact that many homeowners are just as greedy when it comes time to sell. None of this is a bad thing, these are the natural built in market incentives that have led all our great cities to evolve over the centuries. NYC wouldn't be what it is today if it had zoning since the 1600s. Likewise for almost all our cities built before the 1920s. It is zoning that is the anomaly in the history of urban development, a peculiarity that has slowed evolution and dynamism and had many unintended consequences.
1
@Signal
There's a lot to be learned from Houston on this topic. They've had 20+ years of experience with townhouse (TH) densification of single family (SF) neighborhoods. Many neighborhoods near downtown have almost completely evolved into THs. I encourage you to check it out on Google Earth or, better yet, go visit. Ironic how the city that has always been viewed as the most backwards by planners could now in some ways be viewed as the most progressive. Key observations: THs don't drag the neighborhood down, a nice neighborhood will see more expensive townhouses developed. You can even find cases where new million dollar SF homes are built right next to new THs: they weren't afraid to invest. Also, even in the absence of design guidelines, a certain neighborhood architectural character tends to take hold (e.g. historical neighborhoods get more revivalist TH styles because developers know people move to that area for that ambiance). Lastly, while not all THs are affordable, they are more affordable than what otherwise would have been built had there been SF zoning (i.e. teardowns with larger SF houses that add no net housing units). You might see 3 $500K TH built in lieu of 1 $900K teardown McMansion. That will in the aggregate lower housing prices relative to a restrictively zoned place but it doesn't mean the city will be affordable. A more populous city will always be more expensive because you're squeezing more people onto a finite amount of land (>demand, fixed supply).
1
Established "single-family detached" ("SFD") neighborhoods vary significantly. In more recent decades, subdivisions had "Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" ("CC&Rs") that were contractual (not zoning) restricting property owners from dividing their lots or adding additional dwellings.
Many older neighborhoods do not have CC&Rs, and stable zoning is the implicit "contract."
The brunt of disruption and loss in asset value caused by Minneapolis's "feel good" action will fall almost entirely on homeowners in these older neighborhoods.
If you follow the "YIMBY" / "housing affordability" movements in cities like Seattle and Portland, you'll find that it's driven by an unholy alliance of profit-maximizing developers and religious zealots who want to punish homeowners who "got there first."
The national organizations who actually want to do something about the _real_ housing affordability have solid evidence and analysis that market-rate housing is NOT going to make much difference, and may _exacerbate_ the problem by tearing down older, smaller homes to build condos for well-off buyers.
The real solution is financial assistance to organizations that build rental housing available at affordable rents.
20
@Janice "The real solution is financial assistance to organizations that build rental housing available at affordable rents."
where is that subsidized housing going to get built if we don't allow it in single-family neighborhoods?
I grew up in St, Paul and lived in Minneapolis for 25 years. This is one of the smartest moves I have seen the mayor and city council make and I applaud them for it. I lived for 15 years in the Fulton neighborhood which I loved, close to Lakr Harriet but very white. The public schools there are extremely racially segregated and I truly hope that is the next problem the city solves.
16
@Juliana James What about citizens/taxpayers who LIKE the Fulton neighborhood just the way it is? Do they have any rights?
8
@Juliana James
Why does a neighborhood being majority / very while make it bad?
If you integrate a neighborhood with poorer residents, of any color, that will make the area worse for all.
9
@me what about the people who owned that land before it was stolen? I bet you they LIKED it exactly the way it was before colonizers came and built entire cities on it. Frankly, building a few multi unit homes isn’t nearly that drastic of a change. I’m in a neighborhood full of multi-unit housing and it’s not towering apt buildings, it’s a wonderful community. 4 units does not a tower make. Owning a home and paying taxes doesn’t give you the right to ignore the fact that a huge portion of your community is suffering so that you can continue to live in a comfy little bubble. We all need to stop perpetuating the “them vs us” mentality. Those in need of more housing options are members of your community. If they prosper, so do you and so does everyone else. Empathy is the name of the game. You’d want it too if you were in a different position that was not entirely in your control.
15
Dear San Francisco Supervisors,
You listening to this? Instead of wringing your hands about costs of housing, but tying up anyone who wants to build new housing in years of red tape and "neighbor input", you should come up with zoning rules that allow for higher density. Once those zoning rules have been established, allow "by right" zoning so that builders can just follow the rules and not have to worry about endless challenges.
18
@Matt J.
I recently cashed out of San Francisco and moved to a nicer city. The supervisors, as you know, are elected by district to represent the residents.
There is no neighborhood in San Francisco where a project isn't met with rabid opposition by those who live there: Too high, too dense, too expensive, too ugly, too modern, blocked views, more traffic and of course, the catch-all: gentrification.
Blame the voters who elect incompetent supervisors like Mandelman.
6
@Matt J. I live in Palo Alto, where we have drastically overbuilt office space relative to housing (developers find office space much more profitable to build), and so we have a huge influx of people, and a huge demand for housing, which is pushing prices sky-high. But land values are also sky high, and land is very scarce. Our problem is that we do not have room for the schools, parks, parking, etc, that would be needed if we were to increase our housing stock sufficiently to bring down prices. We could just cram people into schools and parks, and cars onto streets, but then the whole nature of the city changes, and the reasons that people live here. We are really at a cross-roads. I'm of the opinion that we need to convert some of that office space into housing, but the City Council does not want to be so overtly hostile to businesses. It's difficult.
2
Bravo, Minneapolis! You have taken a wonderfully courageous first step in dismantling the legacy of racial segregation in your city. Unfortunately, it won't work. You, along with Seattle and Portland, still have too many scared whites living inside your city limits. They will use the removal of single-family zoning as their excuse to flee to the suburbs, just as a prior generation of whites used desegregation as their excuse to flee to the suburbs back in the sixties and seventies. Remember, when a white guy puts a "For
Sale" sign on his lawn and tells you that "We just need more space," he actually means he needs more space between himself and the nearest black guy.
3
@Walter Bruckner you obviously don't know Minneapolis and its residents. Most young people in Minneapolis and St Paul, as well as many who grew up in the suburbs, have zero desire to live in the suburbs. They love the diversity, restaurants, lakes, parks, and breweries of the city. This is an excellent move by the city. We white city people are going nowhere.
20
I'm a black person in Minneapolis. the younger generation is different. everyone wants density, biking and fewer cars. I wish they would do something about the buses. not all of us can bike
4
I got my college degree in Urban Studies many years ago, so I know a little about this topic. I applaud the Minneapolis City Council for this bold step, but WHY do people have to drag the issue of race into this--especially the New York Times, which seems intent on keeping a focus on those Horrible White People and their heinous deeds? This has nothing to do with race--get over it. It's a scientific issue of addressing a shortage of affordable housing with a growing HUMAN population.
39
@Thomas
...*and* an issue of preserving a quality of life and principal asset value for people who have worked very hard, and sacrificed enormously, to get them. Tread lightly here. Tread very lightly.
The command to bus children decades ago caused profound changes that reverberate to this day. Advocates who disparage these sentiments as mere racism do so at their peril. Why, I expect that many black SFR owners would feel the same apprehension.
6
@Thomas It is very much about race, as evidence by the fact that past racism is specifically mentioned in the Zoning Plan proposal.
6
@Thomas Indeed! I am a minority, and even I think 'white people' ( whatever that means ) can't catch a break in these pages. If white people move into an area, its called gentrification, if white people move out, its called white flight. You just can't win.
24
I currently live in a historic neighborhood that developed over 150 years, before there were strong city zoning laws. We have a good mix of multi unit, large and small single family. Prices range from $500 a month rent for a one bedroom to $4 million mansions, all within a few miles.
Interestingly, the neighborhood is economically diverse, but not racially diverse at all. The black families in our city want to live in black neighborhoods. How about investing in black neighborhoods-infrastructure, parks, road improvements, safety initiatives, rather than trying to get black people to move into white ones? The assumption that of course a black family would want to live in a white neighborhood because they are better is simply racist.
Cities do need sensical zoning laws, but thinking that it will help racial diversity is naive. Where to live is a more a cultural decision than a financial one.
21
@jsb
You state, "Black families want to live in Black neighborhoods." What you are suggesting is "separate but equal," That notion was ruled unconstitutional in 1954.
4
@C. Fig So, are Asian neighborhoods (like Chinatowns), Latino neighborhoods, Italian neighborhoods, Middle Eastern neighborhoods also unconstitutional?
3
This article is misleading. The 2040 plan is just a guide to be submitted to the regional government body the Met Council. Any zoning changes still need a long process starting next year. The city has nothing in place to achieve everyone's lofty goals. Sadly
6
My wife and I just moved to Minneapolis from a suburban home in Wisconsin. We did it on purpose; our neighborhood has a walkable commercial district and on our block of bungalows and walk ups are LGBT families with kids, Somalis and African Americans, older couples like us, younger couples, the lot. We all get along (unless you don't shovel your walk).
Here's a picture of our newly elected member of Congress sitting next to the Speaker yesterday: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/us/politics/nancy-pelosi-democrat-leadership.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Don't underestimate Minneapolis.
It's livable because it works at it.
102
@Richard You have a right to your choices, but you don't have a right to impose those choices on others.
6
@Richard I don't know what a Somali representative sitting next to the Speaker possibly has to do with Minneapolis's "livability." It just makes you feel good about being "inclusive." FWIW I'm born and raised in St. Paul and had to leave the Twin Cities because of lack of opportunity in my field.
13
@me "You have a right to your choices, but you don't have a right to impose those choices on others"
coming from the guy who thinks homeowners have a right to decide how many units their neighbor's house should have.
14
I don't think most Minneapolis residents would oppose market-rate multi-family units in their neighborhoods.
But no neighborhood has ever been improved by the addition of Section 8 subsidized housing.
32
@Randy Your bias shows when you make assumptions about subsidized housing. NOTHING in the article mentions that.
8
@Randy So you're saying neighborhoods are worse when we let poor people live in them? Do you hear yourself?
3
@C. Fig
I didn't suggest it did. It is you who's making assumptions.
As a Saint Paul resident, I welcome this change to the twin cities, and hope the trend continues. Density is not a four letter word. We need more housing, including a variety of choices in different neighbourhoods. There’s a distinction between affordable housing and housing affordability. If we’re going to profess inclusion, let’s be inclusive. Let’s build cities in our cities.
95
I wish I knew what the term “afforbable housing” means when it is used in the Times. I must see it hundreds of times monthly. Does it mean apartments, government subsidized apartments, free government paid for apartments, tax breaks for developers to build apartments, tax breaks for developers to make smaller less expensive homes, etc. I wish the term “affordable housing” and its sisters “tax reform” “criminal justice reform” “income inequality” and
“prison reform” would be edited out of the Times and substituted with specific words and phrases that no one will be confused as to it’s meaning. I’ve practiced law for 20 years and have read the Times for 30 years. I regularly ask people what these terms mean and get hundreds of different responses. My law professors drilled into my head to write clearly. The use in a news story of these ambiguous political slogans which are selected by politicians to be ambiguous is beyond silly. Their use is an insult to the reader and should not be used.
52
I believe affordable housing is commonly understood to mean being priced at <30% of the median household income.
HUD has a good article on the topic you may be interested in: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-featd-article-081417.html
10
@Shamrock. It's just possible one of those articles you read mentioned that Affordable is considered to be no more than 30-33% of one's income. Maybe you forgot. Alternatively you can google it instead of griping.
8
@Edan
Thank you. I’ve never read that definition. I appreciate your response. But I’m afraid that is not the definition that is meant when the phrase is used in the Times.
6
Brilliant and progressive move. Says so much about the fine people of this area. The real test now is how the residents in the SFR's respond. Please do not leave. Do not do what killed places like Cleveland. Do not make "white flight" the norm. Instead, keep moving toward complete integration. Diversity is the beauty of America. It will make neighborhoods thrive.
13
@Mark no worries. We white progressives have been flocking to the core cities and aren't going anywhere. Our neighborhoods are doing amazingly well with our multi-cultural neighbors. We wouldn't trade it for the boring, bland suburbs for anything.
9
@Mark You have a right to your own choices and preferences, but you don't have a right to impose them on others.
2
Relieving the housing shortage and providing a conduit for racial equality are admirable goals. I hope it works out that way. Regardless of race or economic status, renters as a group are not as conscientious as homeowners when it comes to noise, litter, animals, parking, etc. The whole thing becomes one of optimizing the situation. Some will be better off; some worse off.
11
@fordred Your comments about “renters as a group” is really something. Maybe it depends on the region, the renters, the landlords and the types of housing, eh? In the SF Bay Area, there are more renters than owners in units now. In many, if not most, single-family homes, the renter is expected to pay for water and electricity and gas, as well as garbage pick-up, and keep the yard trimmed and green and landscaped to the standards of the landlord. Those renters treat their homes as they would if they owned them. Ah, if only they could. Most of the responsibility, little of the benefits.
6
@Berkeley Bee
Apparently, it does depend.
Writing from the beautiful neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights, NYC - the first suburb in the country. Looking out from the coffee shop window I can see small apartment buildings, brownstones converted to multi-family, and single family homes that sell for millions. Mixed is marvelous...though it takes well thought through regulations, inspired planning and strong community engagement. And as the cost of living here proves - it is not a panacea for rising housing costs.
24
@Samantha The difference is that your neighborhood grew into what it is over a couple hundred years. No doubt many store had and perhaps still have the merchant's families living above them.
This is about suddenly changing all the rules.
3
Excellent news.
3
Smart decision by the city government - a vote against perpetuation of suburban hell. Will follow to see how they roll this out. Growing pains aside, radical policy decisions have their place and time; this being good timing. God speed.
15
Don't know if social engineering is in any way a good solution to these problems. If people fear, rightly or wrongly, that their own quality of life will be degraded or their own schools will suffer, I predict that some will vote with their feet. The risk is that once thriving neighborhoods will be perceived to at risk and will be abandoned by those who can afford to move, leaving the others behind. I hope that I am wrong, but I doubt it.
15
@SR single family zoning is social engineering, too, it just doesn’t feel like it to people invested in maintaining it as the default.
18
You don’t seem to understand what zoning is. Zoning does not “require” that anything new gets built, it merely gives the market the freedom to allow new things to be built. If anything fits the bill of “social engineering”, it’s the highly restrictive single family zoning that was put in place in the first place!
13
@SR You realize that the single family zoning restriction in itself was a very active (and racist) form of social engineering, right? The issue for you isn't that it's social engineering, it's that it's a type of social engineering you're not comfortable with right now. Which is fine - but it's unfair to frame the issue as single family homes are just "natural" or whatever
8
NYC should take a hint from Minneapolis. Instead of doubling down on rent control, which is, literally, the textbook example of failed economic policy the world over, NYC should lower rents by, wait for it, increasing supply!
11
@B actually you can work on this problem from both ends - allow for much more apartments, but also require affordable housing as part of new development. these goals are not mutually exclusive.
Developers are jumping for joy at the prospect of bulldozing single family homes, many of which are historic. And what will go up in their place? High priced rentals that are not affordable for the people this plan is allegedly supposed to help. Nothing for the working poor and certainly nothing for families that want to raise their kids in the city and support ours schools unless you what to raise your kids in a studio or one bedroom - but I'm sure the kids will love the granite countertops and stainless steel appliances. Further all this building is taking place in the very pricey lakes area which doesn't do anything for affordable housing. Our city council and mayor are clueless.
25
@ROK as someone who works with the large scale developers you are referencing, I can assure you that the opposite is true. Full disclosure, I am a huge proponent of this plan. Most developers were opposed to this plan because it allows their corner of the market to be accessible to everyone. They had sort of monopolized all housing and the only type of housing that made financial sense for their pro formas is exactly the kind you mention, the fast, cookie cutter stainless steel 5+1's everywhere. Because of this, even with all the boom in construction the last 20 years, we have actually lost affordable housing stock because it didn't make sense for the very particular group of developers who controlled housing stock. This will actually allow a massive diversity of housing, including single family homes, which should address every corner of our great cities market.
36
@ROK The fact that new-built is always more expensive (hard to argue against) does not contradict the general rule that more supply pushes prices down (also difficult to argue against).
The explanation is that people who are ready to pay $2,000 a month to rent a fancy modern studio do not disappear when you don’t build that studio. If you build a fourplex (what an ugly word by the way) you will remove four wealthy households from the demand side on the market. If you leave a single-family house you only remove one. It’s as simple as that.
If you don’t do that look at any expensive city: the wealthy households WILL end up take the poor people’s housing instead. Not because an apartment in Brooklyn is old, ugly, drafty and small it means it’s cheap, and that’s because some people with lot of money to spend can’t find anything else for that price elsewhere.
10
@Jake W Thanks for this. When people with *actual* knowlege speak, those with mere vague impressions of how things work should listen.
4
"Affordable Housing" is one of those phrases that seems to mean different things to different people. There are people who can't afford the basic necessities of life. Children in poverty who deserve better from us. That should be our priority. Young working couples who can't afford a $400,000 (people on the coast are probably laughing at that price) house, but could probably afford a $275,000 house need to get in line behind those who truly need affordable housing.
25
@Steve S The problem is, if that young couple buys the $275,000 house instead (and that’s what they’ll do, because unlike some people seem to think, young people who struggle with housing costs don’t just sit on the side of the road and cry), then that’s one less house on the $275,000 market, so maybe next seller will prop up the price to $280,000 instead.
If you build enough houses like the $400,000 one (which is possible because it probably costs half that to build it), it won’t cost $400,000 anymore. And people will buy it instead of pricing out people who can’t afford the basic necessities of life.
And that’s a much better way of doing than giving $125,000 to the young couple so they can buy at $400,000, or any of the very wide range of subsidy schemes that most cities are creating (subsidies that will be paid ultimately by the taxpayer, ie that young couple).
1
I live in the Lowry Hill neighborhood of Minneapolis in a row house. Our street is a mix a single family homes and apartment buildings. My wife and I raised our four kids here, all went to public schools K-12 and public Universities.
When our friends from the suburbs come to visit they attempt to hide their horror at the fact that people park on the streets and the population is racially diverse. They worry they'll get mugged going out to their cars.
I love our neighborhood. I am out with the dog a lot and know many of the people who live here. We can walk to grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants. I love the fact that there are always people out on the sidewalks. The neighborhood is quite safe and I have no qualms about walking the dog at midnight.
The people of Minneapolis will hopefully learn that diversity, apartments, increased population density are all good things.
174
@JP Tolins Thanks for your comment, and I second it as a young woman living in the Windom neighborhood in south Minneapolis. We already have a mix of single-family, duplex, and four-plex buildings on our street, and I wouldn't trade it for lower density. Restaurants and small businesses want to set up shop nearby because of the great customer base within easy walking and transit distance.
33
I lived in Minneapolis for 11 years as a low-income renter and then a middle-income homeowner. As renters, my friends and I commonly lived in 4-plexes adjacent to single family houses near the University. We were generally welcomed in the neighborhoods and only occasionally vilified. I welcome these changes and think it will allow development of affordable housing without bulldozing whole neighborhoods. The only thing I worry about is soil lead pollution from demolishing single-family houses built before 1950, as are the standard Mpls. Additional multi-unit housing will also be beneficial as multi-generational family housing - we are currently looking to buy a duplex or triplex for this purpose.
29
A capitalist view: What will it do to real estate market values? Will the moneyed class stand for it? Will there be an exodus to communities that keep the zoning scheme?
"This is still a great place to live", what makes it a great place to live?!?! The answer to this question may offer answers to many questions?!?!
2
@tbs One thing that makes it a great place to live is the natural amenities; lakes, Mississippi River, parks, etc. The lakes especially will likely suffer from the added density unless real efforts are made to curtail the degradation.
7
@Moose Shall we create laws to prevent people from enjoying the lakes, so other people can enjoy it better?
3
@Bob Robert I'm talking about pollution, runoff, etc., not use of the lakes.
3
1. Absent rent regulation, rents are going to be driven by property values that reflect the landlord's investment and potential return from selling. A 600 square foot studio in a neighborhood where homes sell for $750,000 will rent for more than a similar apartment in an area where homes sell for $200,000. They are hoping increases in rental supply will slow the pace of rent increases. Maybe, but it will take a long time, and won't bring rents down in affluent areas.
2. White people are willing to pay a ridiculous premium to have all or mostly white neighbors. Thus, there is a smaller buyer base for properties in adjoining majority-black neighborhoods, which keeps prices low or at least not increasing as fast as in white areas. Building more market-rate apartments in the areas where prices (and therefore rents) are inflated due to the White Neighbor Premium does not solve the problem. See #1.
3. It's hard to tell if the new rules will allow existing homes to be broken up into multiple apartments. Here in Philly, that is universally seen as a sign of a declining neighborhood. In part that is because landlords are not required to provide services like yard maintenance, sidewalk weeding and snow removal for buildings with fewer than a certain number of units. Tenants tend to be spotty about keeping up.
6
Middle and upper-middle class white and blacks -- both -- want neighbors who are clean, quiet, invested in their homes, and don't spill out onto the streets drinking beer, smoking dope, and littering. Or yelling instead of having conversation.
Having lived in a few Brooklyn neighborhoods, I can attest that people of all colors indulge in this unneighborly behavior. It isn't something I appreciate.
13
@B. So if I follow well, the problem is not with white or black people, it is with poor people, and renters, because they have no manners or respect?
And your solution is just to not have them live in YOUR neighborhood?
I see a couple of issues there...
2
This is a wise and brave move on the part of Minneapolis. I lived there for 34 years, and I saw the duality of the culture. On the one hand there was is the "nice" Minnesota culture -friendly, sweet, and always eager to please. However, the darker side is the passive-aggressive, critical, standoffish, avoid eye contact underbelly. Everything and everyone has their unspoken place. This group lives here, while that group lives there. Keep it like that, and all is well, just don't cross the line. So, for the city to make this move is very welcome. It will take some real changes in attitudes and some genuine surrender of the past to move forward, but it is a bold and welcome move. For the past five years I've lived in Portland, Oregon. This city is in the midst of massive changes as well. The homeless population is increasing, traffic is terrible, and housing costs are at an all-time high. This city, in a similar way to Minneapolis, is in a push-pull culture of nostalgia for the old Portland (smaller, quirky, low-key) and the coming-whether-you-like-it-or-not Portland (larger, denser, with large city problems). There are proposals to take similar actions to what Minneapolis has done, and I hope they go through. Minneapolis has now taken a lead role in all of this, and I hope they succeed. There will be some strong push-back. Indeed, we have that here in Portland, but like it or not, we have to take care of each other. To stand still is to fall behind. Good luck Minneapolis.
65
If Minneapolis 2040 goes into effect, it has the potential to degrade one of the most liveable cities in the country. Why is there no mention of planning for the stressors on infrastructure created by massive new housing? What about the demolition of existing single family homes? How will the architecture be integrated into existing neighborhoods? Traffic is already a troubling aspect on many of the Cities main arteries. The Twin Cities has a reputation for innovation–this does not appear to be such a project. City Council should indeed move slowly and definitely include a full environmental assessment. I have not witnessed one city, in all of the cities I have visited world-wide, that has managed growth in a positive manner. May the the Twin Cities find the best solution.
43
@JD Solanas Growth is coming whether you want it or not.
12
@JD Solanas
" Why is there no mention of planning for the stressors on infrastructure created by massive new housing?"
Literally the second topic on the 2040 topics page. One of the whole points is to increase the number of people who have access to transit and the number of people who can live close enough to downtown to reduce automobile dependence.
https://minneapolis2040.com/topics/
Also, lol at 'massive new housing.' Sure, buddy. Keep up the fearmongering.
15
@JD Solanas I am not sure if you have been following along with the various conversations and meetings regarding the Minneapolis 2040 plan, but most of the items that you question above are indeed included in the plan's document. Additionally, this is not policy (yet) but rather a goal, and how to achieve the goals.
Furthermore, this has been in the works for three years in discussions with urban planners, community members and elected officials; it was not generated willy-nilly without thought.
https://minneapolis2040.com/
14
As everywhere, the real estate developers pay the Council to permit more people packed into the same space. I saw it in New York, I see it in suburban Atlanta and Sitting Bull saw it when Custer arrived. The given reason is always the same: more living space. The real reason is more profit and campaign contributions. Unfortunately, "nice neighborhoods," can't survive increasing populations. I still sympathize with the Native Americans and the Buffalo.
20
@rose6 Well that's how market economy works: it doesn't matter that developers are in it for the money and not for the well-being of society, as long as they are building the housing we need. Just like you don't care that GM is in it for the profit as long as you like their cars...
Nice neighborhoods can survive increasing populations, depending on what you call "nice".
Currently there is a tent city along Hiawatha Avenue and Franklin Avenue, with a couple hundred people living in dirty, unsafe conditions. While some of these people have conditions (mental illness, addiction, etc.) that lead to homelessness and keep them out of shelters, others are simply poor. The city and some other groups are trying to find a better solution; winter is setting in and temperatures are around freezing. It will get much colder in the coming weeks.
The need for affordable housing is very real here.
33
@Elsa The encampment is not a housing issue. The encampment is our chickens coming home to roost for the centuries of destroying Native Americans and their culture. The encampment is largely Native - overrun with heroin, mental illness, formerly incarcerated people who we won't hire and a people suffering from generational trauma the likes of which we have no idea. But sure lets all move them into triplexes in Kenwood and Linden Hills and I'm sure all their problems will be solved.
11
@ROK
I lived my first decade in Minneapolis near the "encampment" in the West Bank neighborhood.
In run-down rental house shared with future yuppies on Milwaukee Avenue. $80/mo shared with 3-6 others (in less than 700 livable square feet) It was good, but crowded.
And a safe neighborhood back then, and now I suppose.
Now -- a fairly safe neighborhood to encamp near, but cold and getting colder.
1
the real positive effect of this type of citizenery(if can can call it that!) is formation of community;people end up seeing each other on a daily basis and eventually saying hello or good morning to each other(presently IF you happen to go to church or your temple you see your neighbors a few times in a year!).
2
Simple solution, vote the city council out next election and roll back their ignorant, short sighted ruling. It would be appropriate to faze in multi-family zoning, but it creates huge disparity issues for those existing single-family homes. City planners routinely find it unacceptable to put an R-1 zone next to an R-4 zone. They might have legislated out the R-1 zone, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist for the 60% of single family housing in Minneapolis.
10
@nwsnowboarder We voted them in specifically to do things like this. You're just outnumbered.
8
@Alex I am sure the city council was elected because they promised to tackle the issue of affordable housing. They were not elected to tackle the issue in a single minded manner that did not address all voters concerns. I see no mention of urban villages, design standards, or infrastructure improvements. There are other high density areas around the country that are taking a holistic approach with graduated density increases, transportation corridors, allowing mother-in-law apartments, urban villages, etc., without resorting to the knee jerk reaction of the Minneapolis City Council. It is very obvious the city planners in Minneapolis have not reviewed, nor learned from the urban planning of other municipalities, not everyone can live in a single family home, but those that do, regardless of race or national origin, what to live in a single family neighborhood. I think Minneapolis will see some neighborhoods vote to become their own municipalities in order to determine their own fate, not the fate ordained from a city council out of touch with reality.
4
@nwsnowboarder
Those existing single-family homes ? Were all subsidized by tax exemptions, sometimes by company-store deals (like the Milwaukee Ave where I once lived)
I hope some developer pays me over market to divest me of my lead-paint contaminated, sagging basement, ancient, grandfathered, single-family home. In a prime inner-city neighborhood
1
There are less than a dozen comments posted and almost all are NIMBY (not in my back yard) oriented. People don't seem to understand that missing middle housing (triplexes, quadraplexes, granny flats, and small apartment buildings) were commonplace in thriving neighborhoods until the 1950s and today are some of the most thriving and diverse places to live in mature cities.
100
@Sasha Love You’re absolutely right, Sasha. Not sure what Ted is chirping about.
8
Minneapolis adopted a plan. They still need to amend their zoning ordinance.
To say "the Minneapolis City Council voted last Friday to get rid of the category and instead allow residential structures with up to three dwelling units — like duplexes and triplexes — in every neighborhood" is premature.
The zoning amendments are subject to hearings and a public process that will include some debate and possible changes.
6
it's all about school zone. Apartment complexes don't pay sufficient tax to accomodate school expansion due to a flood of kids from low-income families. The end? Capable families move away to better school zones and the previous location degrades. Be realistic.
16
@Doug The Twin Cities are unique in employing a system of regional 'fiscal equalization' driven by a regional government known as the Met Council. While this system is far from perfect and the Met Council garners much local criticism, the goal is to reduce the inequities between cities in the area by spreading out wealth so everyone benefits from growth. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/the-miracle-of-minneapolis/384975/
1
I hope that they increase public transit with the increase in housing density. Even better if they would zone for small commercial districts to increase the "walk scores" of the neighborhoods. I am not talking about big box stores. A small corner store for basic groceries, a few restaurants, a drug store, maybe a small hardware store.
Not needing a car for each adult in the house makes life less expensive and makes building less expensive. I think that it also greatly increases quality of life.
51
@Colleen M Yep, that would be wonderful, except they can't compete financially with Amazon, Walmart, etc.
That's been the problem for several decades now - I watched the small corner stores in Chicago close in the 80's, and that was before those stores came to dominate. We are just starting to see the coming wave of fully-automated stores.
What you're talking about is neighborhood and community, but I'm afraid what we will end up with is Amazon and Walmart automated depots on every corner.
8
@Colleen M You're describing my neighborhood in south Minneapolis! :) On the closest corner to me, I've got a hardward store, 4 non-chain restaurants, a salon, a dog groomer, a martial arts school, a gym, and an insurance office. Grocery store is 4 blocks away. Love it!
As for transit, funding and resources get allocated based on need and politics across the metro region. The system will respond incrementally to incremental change, but many of the same voices against the 2040 plan are also against transit investment. It will take time.
14
I wonder how local neighborhood covenants will work with this new zoning plan. Can someone build a triplex in a gated community? Will the neighborhood have any ability to block new construction or renovations that aren't in line with the existing neighborhood? There would obviously be a lot of demand for gated community living with lower costs that come with being in a triplex. It sounds like you could buy a house in a gated community, split it into three units and then rent them out for a premium.
I like the idea of increased housing density, but it seems like this plan needs a little more work before it can be rolled out.
3
@Ben. There are no gated communities in Minneapolis
18
@Ben There are no gated communities within the city of Minneapolis. I don't know of any "neighborhood covenants" either, just zoning laws and citywide rules and ordinances. These things exist in the suburbs but not in the city.
12
I'm definitely interested in following how this goes 5, 10, 15 years down the line. My initial thought is that it's not going to end up well. People with money might simply move out of Minneapolis to live in a neighborhood that does not look like a hodge-podge of random houses, where they can still have a yard, and where they might not be next to an apartment complex potentially. I also wish the article talked a little bit more about how this is actually going to take effect. When people sell their current single family homes, does this mean the next person can come in, bulldoze it to the ground, and build a 4-plex home? It seems like the real winners are the developers and people who have enough money to potentially buy these new multiplexed homes and rent them out. Will there be rent control? If none of these initial questions are answered first, then it's just a disaster waiting to happen.
43
@thisisme many homeowners and developers are already bulldozing single family homes...to build larger, more expensive McMansion style single family homes
28
@thisisme One of the biggest disasters will be the addition of automobiles to already clogged streets. It's nightmarish during a typical Winter; make it a snowy Winter and you can forget about having a place to park or having two-way traffic on streets (the city has in the past instituted one-side parking during snowy Winters to allow for two-way traffic). I am not aware of the parking spot requirements for the new zoning rules, but if it is in the same vein as the current attitude in the city, it's likely that they will be expecting that people are biking or using transit (which is not yet good enough).
10
@Moose The city council did away with parking requirements for new construction and 2040 has not changed that. This was driven by council member Lisa Bender, who by the way has a very large driveway and two car garage for her two cars. Evidently the rest of us are supposed to get fat tire bikes and go at in the ice, snow and 20 below weather.
17