Comments from the public on the four finalists’ designs, along with future community engagement activities developed post-competition, will be relevant to the identification and features of a selected riverfront project.
Update: Thank you for all of your comments and discussion about the four design proposals and on the winning team, TLS/KVA. If you have comments or suggestions about other aspects of the competition, you can jump on to our new comment thread called Comment on the Competition, added 15 Feb.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Comment on the Design Proposals | Minneapolis Riverfront Design Competition -- Topsy.com
After seeing all the candidates, I’m VERY impressed. I must say, I think thin Turenscape was the most ambitious, while Tom Leader and Ken Smith’s felt the best for the city.
Just so they dont take anymore land by eniment domain like they did for the Above the Falls plan about 6= years ago they ended up taking 3 houses and 1 business which where torn down and then just left after the builder bailed Im just glad they didn’t get Dustys Bar abd the rest on that block like they wanted to
Hi Callie V,Thanks for featuring our drseses on your site! What an honor it would be, to be worn on such a special day in a girl’s life!!!Have a nice weekend!<3 AireModCloth
I liked the River First proposal best. They seemed the most sensitive and had a lot of depth regarding ecology, topology, social realities (such as the notion that you can’t just relocate industry and pretend it’s no longer a problem) and letting nature dictate much of the plan. There was a real sense of ecological stewardship and social responsibility these guys emanated. A lot of the other firms seemed flashy and pie-in-the-sky, especially the first two. My second choice would be the Chinese firm. They had a very distinct vision that was very clearly communicated.
Living in the backyard of heavy industry I disagree. The notion of a “working river” is the past. Gone are the flour mills and floating lumber. Barge traffic currently serves two businesses. Massive land on the west side employs very few people. Tax revenue would greatly increase by expanding the park system, surrounded with residential and green businesses mixed in with commercial.
Additionally, to create just a “job core” does not do much to draw people to the north side to spend their money, thereby improving the entire neighborhood. People go to work and go home. There is no vibrancy in that.
Riverfirst took the “easy way” by leaving the heavy industry, telling some what they want to hear. This area needs to be one of high mixed and diverse usage with enough green space to bring back migrating birds, encourage urban gardens etc. I believe that Ken Smith and Turenscape captured this idea best.
I agree with Susan. I embrace the idea that the river corridor could put Minneapolis communities in touch with nature in more connected and sustainable ways. The corridor needs to support diverse usage and ample green space to bring back wildlife, as Susan said. If I had a vote, it would be for Turenscape.
I watched most of these, which seemed to get a bit long with their message. But, most bring up the issue of connectedness, yet no one mentioned the glowing purple elephant in the room, which would be to PULL THE DAMS.
There are many, many reasons to do this, one being a world class rapids in a major metro area… is there any other major metropolis with this opportunity?
Huh? And you would end up with a ditch you could walk across most years. That would not look too pretty in these artsy drawings, would it?
There are no dams on this section of the river. St. Anthony Falls looks like a dam with the concrete skirt on it, which saved the falls from falling apart. The Coon Rapids dam is to the north and is going to be turned into a barrier for asian carp it appears and the Ford Dam to the south. Perhaps the Ford Dam could be removed, but it wouldn’t affect this section of the river with the falls in between.
Nicolaus hit the bullseye with his comment. RiverFirst appears to be the only design that recognizes the “working river” reality – and how important that can be to Minneapolis (though, perhaps, not to the Park Board thereof) as well as the entire State in the future. The other designs are more “art” than responsible urban planning – not unlike the “Above the Falls” abomination from BRW a few years back. While the Minneapolis riverfront surely needs an upgrade, it needs also to be an integrated plan that includes the working river aspect. Oh, and all except one of those “domes” are for fertilizer, not salt. Research your subject, planners!
After living through the Above the Falls plan and saving my house unlike those across from me I have no faith in any plan until they finish the one they started.
Ken Smith and team presented the most comprehensive, clear, and inspired vision for improving the aesthetic, usability, and ecological integrity of the River corridor and adjacent neighborhoods. His team’s proposal artfully embraced and expanded upon many of the qualities that make Minneapolis great and would indeed bring people back to the River. Well done.
Wonderful!!!! I think it is very important for the residents of Minneapolis to have a long term vision of what the Upper River could be one day. Some of the ideas seem a little farfetched but that is what dreaming is all about. Let’s keep dreaming……
I was at the Walker Riverfront Design presentation. The fact that we saw this kind of talent and collaboration, on a global scale, compete to design a Mississippi Vision is a tribute to our great city of Minneapolis. Let us never forget that we are a great city and that we should have great visions!
The Ken Smith design is best beacuse it will be a project that encompasses all seasons here in MN. A very good well rounded out plan that is also ambitious as well using the left over industries. It would be the best use of the space and would energize the northside.
Good point. I was a bit disappointed that not more emphasis was placed on how this project could help revive and build up the North neighborhood. Ken Smith’s group had the cool “sports bar” idea that would create a land bridge over 94, which was an awesome idea.
All of this wouldn’t reinvigorate the EXISTING community.
It would displace and gentrify!
There is nothing left to gentrify.. its all slumlords that own most of the property in Mckinley, hawthorne and Jordan. If moving people is gentrifying, then so be it. I’ve lived through the good times and the bad over here. And now that a plan has been agreed to, well, as soon as I can, I’m walking away from the city and moving to GV.
Displace by eniment domain like the last plan did Above the Falls they took 3 homes and a business and left a feild no one can go in.
I’m incredibly impressed with TLS/KVA or River First. WOW!
While I was impressed by various aspects of each of the proposals I believe the TLS/KVA Riverfirst plan is the most achievable and thoughtful plan. It specifically addresses the necessity of restoration of the river itself, including natural wetlands, as the progenitor of health and viability of the adjoining communities. It is transformative of the space and enhances functionality, connectedness, and diversity with the least intrusiveness on the existing community. It has a sensitivity to an evolution of usage that can increase and preserve diverse benefits of the riverfront far into the future. It offered the best vision of serving and reconnecting the too long isolated North Minneapolis area to the rest of the city. I was impressed that the plan includes functional educational space, important for maintaining this vision of the primacy of a healthy river as a jewel in the Minneapolis crown of lakes and parks for generations to come. The plan also recognizes that our efforts to envision a future Minneapolis are taking place in a global context and, in considering the future of our water resources, it is inclusive of, yet goes far beyond, just how much tax revenue we can generate in an urban space.
I’m a little blown away that the very first element of the Stoss proposal is a giant, energy wasting light polluting display. What the heck are they thinking?
The spotlight thing couldn’t have been more off base for our community. L.A. sure, maybe. Trying to do that in Minneapolis? Ha! What a joke. I love the fact that I can walk 6 blocks from my house in one direction and be in a serene natural environment. Big lights would ruin that.
I have not read anyone’s comments. However, I am disappointed in all of them. Did any of the proposals consider the extensive Spring floods? The last two proposals give us great ideas on how to use the river. I think we already know that information. Where is the plan that starts with transportation, identifies future density of population areas and identifies what existing structures add to the overall plan.
They dont think. notice all the proposils come from companies out of the state.
I like a lot of the ideas in the Turenscape proposal, especially the education corridor in North and the use of waste heat for community greenhouses.
Turenscape and teams really surprise with clarity, ambition and the most good ideas on the plate. I think their overall planning was rational, easy to follow and yet the designs are complex and beautiful. They have the most original design concepts and thoughtfulness among the finalists, while other tend to rehash more examples we have seen in other
large scale open space design competitions.
FYI if you are frustrated by the talking heads at the beginning of the Ken Smith proposal, the description of the actual work begins at 14:00.
You are rude. Their dialogue adds to the submission.
Thanks, I watched about 7 minutes of them talking and moved on. 14 minutes in, eh? Okay.
I was impressed by how similar the visions were – and how whole heartedly I approve of them. The real question, I think, is how we make sure this vision for a new Minneapolis riverfront becomes a reality. Has the city and park board considered a more aggressive and expansive use of Tax-Incriment-Financing to fund bonds to complete this work? Atlanta is using a wide-ranging TIF district to help build the Beltline (a 22 mile network of parks, trails and transit along old train right-of-ways). Spurring and then leveraging new development will be key to a successful new riverfront – and may be one of the only ways to pay for these improvements.
The Turenscape project was the most inspiring to me. It displays a very diverse set of connections to the river -social, educational, recreational, economic, residential, etc, which is what the winning design -in my mind- should enable.
Go for it!
You paying. Last plan took 3 houses and a business Im just glad we saved Dustys bar or that would be gone now also
I think that the Chinese firm did by far the best. Most of the ideas of the other firms seemed as if they realistically would never get off the ground and weren’t economically feasible. I think theirs was for one the most realistic and affordable. It was in tune with the city and its needs. It was furthermore comprehensive and well thought out. Their video was also the most enjoyable to watch. I could actually see their ideas being used. It’s sad that the river isn’t more of a focus for the city than it is. I mean when I go biking there is more people at Lake Calhoun and Minnehaha than the river. What I would love to have seen was the removal of the concrete apron on St. Anthony Falls…or the development of a more visually appealing one.
I am honestly impressed by all of the plans and I hope bits and pieces of each one is incorporated into the final plan.
Ken Smith – probably my 2nd favorite. I like the idea of decking over 94, although I realize the expense. Also great to see Boom Island an island again! I don’t like the architectural motif – it looks like temporary construction or event fencing… but I like the concept of a consistent architectural theme.
Turnscape – awesome plan! My favorite by far! Beaches at Boom!!! Importance of connections. I appreciate the timeline and expected costs being outlined too. I also like the inclusion of industrial buildings to provide a greater sense of history.
Stoss – How cool would it be (no pun intended) to have a hot tub pool like the hot springs in Iceland! It’d be like the water version of the Conservatory – a place for Minneapolitans to escape in the winter!
TLS/KVA – I like that the plans extended beyond the river and connected, via parks, to neighborhoods in North and Downtown.
My vote would go to Turenscape!
I really like the TLA proposal. It is the most thorough of all of them but with one addition. That the idea of covering I94 with a park is an idea that has been executed in Detroit with their 10 mile freeway to great effect. It would build a land bridge to the river from the Northside.
TLS/KVA “River First” in my opinion had the best overall design concept. They seemed to have done their homework to include consideration of all the aspects that were important: conservation, water, wildlife, wetlands restoration, connectivity and four seasons, among others. Their proposal seemed most user friendly. I was especially impressed by the fact that they included thought to how the river naturally scours the banks and included that into their plan. Using the natural topography of the land to best advantage also earned them points in my book. The Scherer Island portion of their proposal seemed doable and thoughtful. They also included a lot of forward-looking technology into their design. They acknowledged the historical significance of the riverfront, but were designing for the future. I was pleased at their suggestion to include something to recognize Spirit Island in some way and to provide teaching resources in their plan that would complement what Mill City Museum does not for the milling industry.
If Ken Smith Group doesn’t win, I’m moving. Seriously though, while not completely impressed by any of the proposals, graphic representations, or video presentations, I find that Smith’s concepts exclusively are conscience of the city’s personality and ever-changing climate, while at the same time saying, “how many different, exciting ideas for waterfront can we come up with and incorporate somewhere along the river?” ie amphitheater, waterfall, ice rink, beaches… you name it, they’ve proposed it.
My vote would be for Ken Smith or Turenscape. I don’t think we need anymore light pollution as suggested by the Stoss design. Believe me, I’m all for land/water improvement in all it’s forms, but how will any of these projects be maintained. Whose going to keep up the gardens, sugar maple house, and the beach? The city cannot even keep trees and plants alive, weeds pulled and trash picked up at the light rail stations.
All projects require maintenance and while your right Stoss LU’s projects of the gardens and sugar maple house would require a great deal of impute in terms of maintenance, hall of the projects will. Turenscape for example had even more planted areas than the others. Their design concepts showed an entire horticultural district with sunflowers and flower fields lining all of the bike corridors. Lets remember that the designs are conceptual and to actually do any of these projects means a scaling down to some degree. Not to mention the parks department will have to find a way to fund maintenance.
Waist of cash they have had plans for the river for years. Above the falls took 3 houses and one building by eniment domain and let a empty field because the builders backed out. No more spending until you can pay for it Im just glad they didn’t get Dusty’s bar and the business around them by domain also they tried
I would go with Turenscape. Their vision is the most inspiring and probably provides the best means of re-energizing Minneapolis. Even though it is not as ambitious as the other projects I feel like it is doable over a longer timescale. I would rather see this project happen over 50 years than some of the other ones over 10 years.
I liked Turenscape too. Most impressive.
Not exactly bold inspiring designs , or even places that I would go out of my way to visit. That stated I would love to see any of these implemented. We need something.
But something SPECIAL PLEASE.
This reminds me of the recent MIA, Walker & Guthrie commissions. Nice buildings but mediocre projects by great talents.
I’m not sure that any of these designs are workable….primarily because the investment is so large, while the benefit is to so few. Far too much emphasis is placed on parkland and greenspace…and not near enough to the corporations that might co-invest in this type of project if they’re part of a larger corporate campus that looks like Google or Microsoft. Remember that this is a Minneapolis and Hennepen County initiative, and there simply isn’t enough tax $ and/or bonding authority of a city of fewer people than Omaha, NE to finance this. What I didn’t see….was anyone proposing how this gets done design wise over a 15-20 year period. If you can’t answer that question…then this project ends up with a lot of very nice presentations, maybe some nice wine & cheese parties with the elites in Minneapolis; but without commitment of the businesses that would drive this forward.
While Omaha may have a slightly larger population than Minneapolis proper (you’re ignoring the surrounding regions), the fact is Minneapolis has a much higher population density than Omaha (over 2x more dense) and the size of the city is about 50% smaller to boot. This means Minneapolitans are living, working, and recreating closer to each other. It’s for this reason that revitalized, welcoming public spaces are important to the fabric of our little ol’ city.
Very good comment they cant afford a project like this . years ago they had a project very much like this called above the falls. they took land by eniment domain on 13th ave for the river project and the houses and 1 business was torn down 6+ years later we have a empty field with a fence around it and thats it Not to mention how all the people that where gungho on the project have now lef tthe area leaving us with the mess
hmmm…..although Turenscape’s project was well-animated, unfortunately I think it’s the best it has to offer. “A place of solidarity and play…” with fireworks, a light-flashing theater, and a disco boat?! Please. Other than color-enhancing every flower and tree, I felt the project lacked real depth.
simpler than Turenscape, but obviously much more thought-out, was Riverfirst. Their animation was silkily and smoothly done, focusing on the architecture of the river and the river itself. I hope they win– I’ll be watching!!!! this was a cool project.
My vote would be for Turnescape. In my opinion they captured everything that I have always hoped and believed the river could be for the city of Minneapolis. Ken Smith design was impressive as well, but when I saw the amphitheater in the backyard of my townhome development I felt that the Ken Smith design team didn\’t take into consideration those already living on the banks of the river. My question for the city of Minneapolis is what are the next steps to make the designs a reality vs. another concept that falls short of execution?
Initially, I was drawn to this design philosophy by Stoss that emphasized a landscape-based urbanism, one that is partially ecologically based. However, within the first minutes of the presentation, the proposal of a large-scale light structure was a complete turn-off. Aesthetically, it brought to mind the Minneapolis riverfront as a car dealership or the Las Vegas strip.
Environmentally, it is well-documented that artificial light structures using beams of light trap and kill millions of birds each year, as happened with New York City’s “Tribute in Light” at the Ground Zero Memorial. If this proposal were chosen, I think it would reflect bad taste and an under-researched idea that is not ecological at all.
I agree! In addition to adding to the light pollution of the city, Stoss’ vision of putting in an enormous light show featuring crisscrossing spot lights is inconsistent with the plan to restore habitat and attract migrating birds.
Slender Beams of light aimed from the Riverbanks skyward (not light structures as one responder called them) when strategically placed would not be aimed at Neighborhoods, buildings, Trees, the River or otherwise interrupt nature at all. Lights however display that the Mississippi River actually flows thru Minneapolis at night. Minnesotans I beleive take the River for granted. The whole idea of any good plan is to give the River the relevance it deserves. Others out state or out of state, most of whom don’t even know the Mississippi River flows thru Minneapolis, would finally see the lights on the River at night when flying in for example and for once the City of Minneapolis and its River stands apart.
Your comment and example of the Tribute in Light at Ground Zero, as killing birds is not well researched and slender beams of lights would not kill birds. I read the NY Audubon Society study on the Tribute in Lights. Of course you know that lights from buildings can distract birds. The Tribute in Light beams were necessarily large as buiding size to properly Memorialize the Buildings and those killed. Stoss is talking slender beams not Building size beams. You should also know the Tribute in Light caused bird problems one time on the 9th Anniversay only. That particular night The Audubon Society said very remotely there were unique weather/meteorlogical and phases of the moon conditions that happen very seldom that caused the Birds to be distracted. By the way the lights themselves do not cause damage to the birds but rather the Lights slow the birds down and they tend to use more energy when flying south for example. Stoss lights are a good idea for this River project and will not harm birds!
All were interesting, great job to organizers an design submission teams – and thanks!
I believe the Turenscape team best captured the potential of the River as part of our great city. I loved the overall design, including the vision and timeline strategy. Would also be great to see an element included along the lines of the proposed “Spirit Island” in the TLS/KVA design.
I am impressed by the proposals, which are visionary and exciting. Most of the land for the development is in NE Minneapolis, so I see why the bulk of the development is projected there, but the West bank of the River, in North Minneapolis is almost universally neglected. For the revitalization to really have value for the city, there needs to be maximal attention paid to the North Minneapolis side. Otherwise this part of the river will be neglected, and any public land will deteriorate and create. There is a chunk of the North Side section of the river that still is occupied by rather unsightly industrial property. There should be some way to either acquire the land or bypass it on the riverbank, or in a parkway to make sure there is unbroken connection throughout the area.
Just to add, the TLS/KVA proposal is the most balanced in terms of providing development for both the North Minneapolis West side of the River and the NE Minneapolis East side of the river. It is also the best in terms of balance between development and preserving natural habitats.
The lights idea is not apealing and seems unnatural. I really don’t like dome type structures. This plan would not draw me to the river.
I loved the Turenscape plan…….beaches and kids playing in the water, trees, wildflowers and acres of green space. One of the best features is the amphitheatre to showcase the wonderful talent we have in this city – in a beautiful environnment. Please – no neon searchlights!
A riverside greenway to connect to Victory Memorial (Ken Smith)?? Yes, please!! But I do really like that Turenscape identified access to waterfront (social equality) by each neighborhood. And it seems they have wonderfully composed a plan to care for and restore the eroded and nutrient deprived shoreline. Tough choice.
NO SEARCHLIGHTS and NO floating barges up and down the river. We need to invest in services that everyone can partake in at the same time (can you imagine the lines to get on the floating swimming pools???).
Overall, quite remarkable! However I think that TLS/KVA did the best job of keeping the balance between nature and development; their video was well-done and cut to the point without the fancy animation (I feel Turenscape’s design & presentation, though impressively technical, was a little flashy, I would NOT like to see those flashing strobe lights and barges everywhere!). I really liked the TLS/KVA park idea and the natural habitat walkways, and also the integration of the artist community. I also thought that the Spirit Island idea was unique, it would be great to see something done with that– they had obviously done their research. The iTouch app demo was interesting as well.
The presentations were excellent but the third one took more than its fair share of time and caused the fourth to exceed the established time period. Also one of the judges(elected official) left early- seemed pretty disrespectful to private companies that contributed(as stated in the opening part) over $1,000,000 and to the voting process-maybe he’s been in office too long to recognize this. None of the 4 presenters had a realistic idea of what could be done to impact the North Side. This could be due to the lack of representation of the African American as part of the design process and this showed at the presentation.
As a horticulturist living in beautiful Taylors Falls, I can’t help but wish I lived a little bit more out into the future. I loved the Turenscapes approach. I would consider living in Minneapolis for the first time since graduating from the U in 1979. The whole approach of soil building and the horticultural approach would be so organic and draw people to the river like moths to the fire. However, all four concepts have many features in common and can beg and borrow from each other. The City of Minneapolis needs this like ten years ago. Was that Don Shelby narrating in one of the presentations? Also loved the idea of extreme sports, diving and skating to maybe put Minneapolis on the map as an outdoor sports mecca. This would polish up the city so much and draw the likes of the Olympics and likewise. Now for a new stadium too for the Vikings. What a city we would have to be proud of.
The designs shared at the Walker were inspirational. This is an exciting time for our
city, a time to embrace our river and look to the future ecologically, socially, and economically. The Turenscape Team made connections that really touched me:
equal access to the river and its offerings for all people, a focus on green and self-sustaining energy, the enhancement of the natural habitat and health of the river, new green industry and economic developments. These plans are all woven into a vision
over time for the river and its inhabitants and our city and its people.
Yes, that is in fact Don Shelby narrating a portion of our movie presentation!
Hands down, Turenscape. This is the type of comprehensive, innovative thinking that this city needs to help inspire and guide thoughtful development and new energy along the Mississippi River. I’m a Minneapolis transplant from Chicago, and sorely miss the beautiful Make Michigan lakefront and its system of parks and public life. This is the first project which gets me excited about living here. Let’s create something great! Remember: “Make no small plans”
oops, “Make” that Lake Michigan…
I did not see a marina in any of the plans.
Something that the upper Mississippi has needed for years.
I also didn’t see any barge traffic or power boat that keeps our lock and dam in operation.
That allows us access as far as the Gulf of Mexico.
Floating swimming pools and high powered search lights are not the answer for
Minneapolis.
People in Minneapolis looove to be outside, especially during the short but beautiful summers. We are looking for a park to exercise in and relax – we don’t need fancy and expensive. We want leafy/lush/cozy/verdant spaces to enjoy.
GREAT DESIGN ELEMENTS:
– clip-on pedestrian/bike bridges — lots of river crossings for bicycles/pedestrians
– completion of the grand rounds! walk/bike paths on both sides of river
– making boom island an island again
– cantilevered bridge overlook of st. anthony falls (an obvious nod to the Guthrie)
– expanding public transit
– Maple forest – whether the sap is collected or not, it would be nice
– Eco-friendly heated pools – I think this would be the next big thing to do — esp. in winter
– The Walker repurposing existing industrial structures for things like large-scale art housing.
NEED MORE:
– connection with the unique identity of Minneapolis culture and park system.
– we would like an extension of the current already-outstanding park system. It’s OK if it has a similar feel to Minnehaha Pkwy or Dean Pkwy or Hidden Falls in St. Paul. While there can be a flashy/contemporary feature here and there, in general it doesn’t need to be – the natural beauty of the river and its banks don’t need a lot of help!
– connection with the art-heavy culture of NE — think Cheonggyecheon Creek in Seoul, which is dotted with cool local artwork along its shores.
GREAT IDEA BUT…
– Ken Smith’s fields: People in Minneapolis love their organic gardening – but would this be more successfully executed in neighborhood/community gardens?
– Barge Amphitheater: we already have an outdoor venue on both sides of the stone arch bridge – but, further upstream, a cool idea that I think people would buy into.
– covering I-94 could be quite neat, but would probably make more sense, given the cost, in a more densely populated area.
PLEASE NO …
– “Reinterpretation” of what a park is. Let’s learn from what has made the MPLS park system so wonderful over the past 150 years and build upon that.
– extensive gardens that require considerable upkeep – who will maintain?
– flashy stuff like barges, lights, modern looking buildings that will fall out of fashion 20 years from now.
IF I HAD TO PICK A WINNER…
– I’d rather take elements we like from each of them…
– KEN SMITH – if I had to pick one it would be Ken Smith – I think he demonstrated a clear, realistic vision that shows a solid familiarity with what already makes MPLS park system so special
– TURENSCAPE – spectacular presentation. completely un-minneapolis.
– TOM LEADER – some excellent ideas, but presentation failed to present a clear vision.
– STOSS – some great elements: barge amphitheater, heated pools, the strip of fields “sporty circuit”, iconic bridges would be exciting, but out of touch in general with the spirit of minneapolis….they even spelled “Nicollet Island” in the brochure as “Nicollette Island”…and very little treatment of the cornerstone of the whole park: the completion of the Grand Rounds
I think the Turenscape presentation did the best job of showing a comprensive/phased in plan with lots of great elements. Specifically, I liked the community gardens, orchards, swimming/boating area, green living and working space natural areas and really liked the naturalized skating areas where you could hold great winter events. Having a farmers market would be a good addition (I don’t think that was included). I liked the use of the industrial artifacts for the proscenium and waterfall from Ken Smith and the light sculpture from one of the other presentations.
I’m so pleased to know that plans are in process for the upper falls area and that the grand rounds will be connected. I can’t wait to see it become a reality.
Turenscape, I ♥ your design! The bird sanctuary, urban beaches, boardwalk-like area, linkages to neighborhood parks, immediate sunflowers/clover to improve soil.
I really loved the Beijing-based group’s desire to bring back MPLS’s streetcars, and their park “fingers” idea; but, their educational corridor skyway seemed over-the-top and a bit too hard/concrete. I really did not like the idea for light sculptures–I prefer the natural light of the stars to the artificial, attention-seeking spot lights. I believe, too, that I was concerned about the amount of hard surfaces in that group’s design. Overall, I enjoyed the NY-based group’s design. I particularly liked the idea of creating spaces for new festivals, such as a maple tree-tapping festival, although I believe we don’t need to refrigerate our ice rinks in MPLS.
Turenscape and Ken Smith had the best overall proposals, IMO, although each proposal had intriguing elements. I think the idea from Turenscape to make distinct neighborhoods that all share the common bond/connection to the river is a great idea. Also, the idea to have a cantilever bridge that extends into the mist off St. Anthony Falls is superb! I really enjoyed Ken Smith’s proposal for the “2nd waterfall” of Minneapolis. The public garden ideas that several proposed are winning ideas, and the beaches from Turenscape were a great idea. I really liked Ken Smith’s proposal to put museums/galleries in the domes that house salt today, and the “circuits” for ice skating/swimming are really nice.
thanks for your interest!
stoss lu director’s cut video available at:
http://www
1. Search lights don’t make sense
2. Financial cost- none of these proposals seem viable due to excessive costs but it is worth dreaming about the next 50 years.
3. Outdoor recreation was an important theme but I saw no ideas about a new soccer field; something that would not cost as much but could allow for high school and pro teams play on.
4. The indoor garden heated by energy generated from waste was an interesting idea and definitely a reasonable one to get sustainable agriculture going along with people interested in living and working nearby.
5. Most of the other ideas: beachfront, swimming pools, etc. are fabulous but would have to be a long term investment.
6. Outdoor music venue is an interesting idea but would have to be careful that everyone in the area would not have to suffer/enjoy the music that would be broadcasted all over the river.
7. I assume that one plan will win but it seems that most share similar themes and that a molding will be needed to take the best from all and see what can go forward.
8. Each presentation unfortunately lived or died based on graphics and specifics. The extensive dialogue on one is annoying as the viewer wants a concise summary of what the project is about up front with specifics spun out. Some presentations went into the history which is fine but again let’s be realistic and put what can actually happen, i.e., getting businesses, foundations and tax payers to buy something that will fly.
A great city park as major urban infrastructure is long term investments.
1. TLS/KVA Berkely – presentation too abstract
2. Ken Smith NY – Good on specifics environmentally concious, integrates neighborhoods
3. Turenscape Beijing – Good elements but 50 yr. plan seems way too far out for implemetation to manifest an up to date use of the River, River Banks and adjoining neighborhoods
4. Stoss Landscape Urbanism Boston – the most dynamic elements here are desperately needed to elevate Minneapolis and its River above its sometimes too dreary understated style. Lighting into the Sky from both banks is eactly a good starting point to accent the Most powerful River in this Country’s existence in Minneapolis and Minnesota. Lighting of this nature should have been apart of the new 35 W Bridge that in its abscence woefully shortchanges the River and Minneapolis. The Bridges addition each with architectural grandeur would finally rival bridges on the Charles in Boston and the Hudson/East Rivers in NYC. Neigborhood/Business sensitivity and integration is an important awareness of this Plan. The series of Islands coincides with the Grand Rounds already in place and complements the series of Urban Lakes Cedar, Lake of the Ilses, Calhoun and Harriet. As much as I love Minneapolis and its Vibe, for once I hope the City and State chooses a more abundant dynamic statement for our Mississippi River by selecting the Stoss Landscape Urbanism Plan. The Guthrie Design is great as is the Librarys, the Walker etc. However, the perceived dull City of Milwaukee with Santiago Calatrava’s brilliant Art Museum outshines any building we have in Minneapolis. As a 40 yr native of Minneapolis I Hope… Please I hope select this unique Plan to stand out for once instead of always selecting the understated approach. Minneapolis you are more than you think you are as of now. Go for it!
Wonderful proposals all! I liked ideas from all of the firms, with my favorite overall being the Turrenscape. but I may have been influenced by the fabulous presentation of the ideas.
Unlike some of the other commenters, I really liked the idea of the lights outlining the river. I think these lights could be energy efficient, as well as being subtle at the site of the river itself. but they would draw the river site into the rest of the community from a distance.
Turenscape’s proposal is the best and truly incorporates everything the neighborhoods around it need. Ken Smith’s drove me crazy! It would only cause massive amounts of gentrification and would subject yuppie, upper-middle class values onto the existing communities.
Stoss’ design for the string of floodlights on the river is not acceptable. The Mississippi is a major migratory path for birds, and any lights that shine up into the night sky during migration confuse them, causing them to run into buildings or to fly until they can no longer do so. Many birds die each year because of city lights that shine up.
Turenscape and Ken Smith seem to actually understand what Minneapolis needs. I like Turenscape’s ideas better, but I am wondering whether human nature will inhibit their success.
I agree, it has to be one of those two.
It is difficult for me to distinguish among these four proposals, as much of them is essentially standard fare – ecological sensitivity, green economy, recreation space with joggers running past ducks. Not to blast the logic of such proposals, because I believe they would add to the quality of life in the city; I would just be happy enough with any of them.
The one element that stands out most clearly to me is Turenscape’s recognition that the river is a currently neglected, but potentially outstanding, common thread through Minneapolis. In very few places does the river actually connect neighborhoods – in fact most neighborhoods quite deliberately turn their back on it. For me, the most compelling part of any of the proposals is Turenscape’s idea to use the river redevelopment to fundamentally alter the orientation of the surrounding neighborhoods. (This is detailed on page 5 of their proposal)
Following through on this proposal would make Minneapolis a city that is about the river, rather than a city that happens to have a river with recreational paths that aren’t quite as cool as the renderings make them seem.
Very good points.
I think Riverfirst is an extraordinary plan for extraordinary times. Having lived in cities that embody actual relationships between people and nature and thus actually experiencing it, I can say concretely that a plan like this is in line to move any place towards greater balance. When we credit our relationships they grow stronger and function in ways that we never expected. Our relationship to nature requires our true effort and Riverfirst, it is clear in my mind, makes that effort. I hope to stand firmly on the ground along the beautiful Mississippi riverfront in Minneapolis after the plan of Riverfirst is underway.
I don’t care which project gets built as long as the old industrial buildings and factories are preserved and reused as other buildings. Today they may seem like ugly and pointless examples of the failure of yesterday, but in the future they could be powerful learning examples. Not only that I think that it would be very interesting to explore these buildings. They are like something from another world. If we keep them they will someday become archeological examples of Minneapolis’s past. I also find abandoned industrial buildings very beautiful in a very harsh yet somehow organic way. I know in England there is a large park that was built into the ruins of an abandoned oil refinery. Rather than tearing down the entire refinery they just built walkways going through the complex and onto of it. They then planted many plants and trees around and even on the structure. What they built was a very beautiful example of the combination of industrial ruin and the beauty of nature. I would really love to see something like that happen here.
I personally would prefer a blended approach with most of the work taken from Ken Smith and Turenscape. All very well done. One missing piece – incorporate the previously proposed Mississippi Whitewater Park at the southern end of the corridor. Applaud the overall approach and grand idea, but it comes with an enormous pricetag that I can’t see us paying for.
Interesting suggestions, I wonder about that too. Presentation wise, Ken Smith could use less talking heads.
I really fell in love with the first presentation. While I really did like some of the elements presented by the 2nd presentation I really felt that the first one had more elements that fit so well with out compromising the beauty of the past. I really like the idea of the 4th presenters to let the Dakota make the final say about the Spirit area. I would also be nice to see a formal ceremony take place there.
All four of the presentations were extremely good. However, it was unfortunate that each team didn\’t have the same opportunity to share the depth of their design like the TLS / KVA team that took 40 minutes as opposed to the other teams that stuck to 20 minutes. If everyone abided by the 20 minute limit there would\’ve been a much more level playing field. I hope the jury takes into account that the other three teams were not able to go into as much detail with their designs.
The whole concept is very exciting, but just a matter of logistics, will the giant waterfall not drown-out the sound of an outdoor movie or concert?
Well pointed out Caroline!
In my opinion, the TLS/KVA project is the most appealing and thought through / realizable project.
The lights idea didn’t make sense at all and Turenscape’s design seemed a little greenwashed, but I would love to see the KVA/TLS plan go into play! Using the natural layout of the land as a basic building approach really appealed to me, those tethered habitats were also a great idea. I also felt that it was a realistic plan that I could envision in the near future.
What a magnificent vision…oh please make this happen.
The TLS proposal is fantastic, lush, romantic and timely. We need it!
As a former resident of Minneapolis, i have been watching this process with great interest. I have always believed that the riverfront was neglected, but had tremendous potential to help make the area a destination versus an obstacle. With that in mind, I believe that the best design and the one that will help the city achieve its goals is the TLS/KVA design. While all the proposals have merit, i believe that this design will be to help Minneapolis improve the area and obtain the most potential from its most impressive resource, the Mississippi. The other designs did not provide the desired simplicity and blending with nature.
Love this proposal! So many different aspects to bring us closer to the river, and offers of year round activities for all to enjoy. Way to go!
Ken Smith project. Love this proposal! So many different aspects to bring us closer to the river, and offers of year round activities for all to enjoy. Way to go!
Upon viewing the presentations it appears that no design was as thoughtful or as comprehensive as Riverfirst. This proposal was clearly grounded in Minneapolis. I believe TLS/KVA are the only designers who fully grasped what the city needs.
Riverfirst is a promising design proposal and I think the most thoughtful. Bridging over the highway is a great idea.
After attending the presentation, I left thinking the proposals were all good but none was great. Having spent the last couple days reviewing them one-on-one, I have to say I feel there is a clear winner (at least for my vote). Turenscape has just the right amount of creativity mixed with practicality.
I like aspects of the other team’s proposals, and without a doubt some of the ideas from each will be explored and used in the future. But none spoke to me and none has stayed with me like that of Turenscape. It is the most complete, most well thought out proposal. It’s unique and imaginative without being too much. And the design for the first project, Halls Island, is simply stunning.
The TLS/KVA submission is hands-down the winner, both for it’s inventive response to program and it’s straightforward, yet beautiful use of materials and plantings. It will become a heritage park, not unlike the Olmsted works in the region.
I have worked at the Federal Reserve Bank for 10 years, enjoying the river walk during lunch hours. I like the way this team has proposed to connect areas to the Northeast, enabling them to make use of this wonderful river resource for work and play. We don’t all live on a lake or own a cabin!
I have worked at the Federal Reserve Bank for 10 years, enjoying the river walk during lunch hours. I like the way this team has proposed to connect areas to the Northeast, enabling them to make use of this wonderful river resource for work and play. We don’t all live on a lake or own a cabin!
I’m unsure how Turenscape plans to connect to Spirit Island, since it no longer exists. TLS seems the only proposal to acknowledge indigenous people and the need to integrate native people, particularly the Dakota into planning and making the new riverfront.
I’m most impressed with — and inspired by — the TLS proposal. Its “green port” concept not only transforms the transportation infrastructure of the area into an energy-efficient asset for the region, but it integrates the arts, native history, recreation, buisness enterprises and green space into a design that will be a magnet for people and investment. The design team’s collaborative, community-based approach will build ownership and use by multiple constituents — including neighborhood residents, entrepreneurs, artists, youth, urban employees and visitors. Their vision for a riverfront community center is brilliant!
Definitely a very comprehensive and timely plan — this looks like the clear winner!
Oh oops, I meant to specify the TLS/KVA proposal — it was the only one that appeared to have a cohesive strategy on how to connect the landscape proposal (all of the proposals seemed to have a strong landscape component) to the urban and social fabrics of their surroundings.
Out of the four proposals, “Riverfirst” is the most ‘city-sensitive’. The designers addressed various scales of infrastructure and managed to establish multiple narratives relating the river to the city and it’s history.
It’s great to read smtoheing that’s both enjoyable and provides pragmatisdc solutions.
I find the Turenscape proposal to be the most comprehensive and visionary of all proposals. It best connects the neighborhoods with the river, and also proposes real “green” industries that can be sustainable and more than just experimental…not just a park, but a design for a new lifestyle that is in harmony with nature, history and our changing world. The long view speaks to the depth and richness of their thinking.
Tim, I agree with you that Turrenscape had a visionary design but don’t you think this “red ribbon” idea could be placed anywhere? It seems like a cookie cutter proposal to me…not very specific to our area.
Red ribbon can be put every where as a conceptual idea, but its shape and design
aren’t going to be the same every where. It’s like having a pond, an allee
a promenade in many cities and towns. Red ribbob would still be pretty
cool and rare, than say, a park lawn!
I am very impressed with the entire process and the whole idea of transforming the riverfront in Minneapolis, it is a distinctive city feature with a rich history and long ignored as a community asset. I was most impressed with proposals that included the river\’s natural behavior and considered the whole package, from river dynamics to wetland restoration to biohavens to land use to honoring the integrity of its commercial past while considering new ways to positive economic development. Loved the Green Port idea and the imaginative repurposing of existing industrial infrastructure.
Though I presently live in South Minneapolis, I lived on the riverfront in the ’80’s and have always considered some day returning. This has given me something of a vested interest in this riverfront design competition. I was most impressed with the balance and pragmatism of the proposal that the TLS/KVA (could be a more user friendly moniker) Team presented. Thoughtful and insightful stuff.
While all the proposals seem grand, I liked the combination of practicality and vision proposed by TLS/KVA. The River First project seems to meld the history of the river front with a clear vision for how it can fit into a green future.
The TLS/KVA proposal is concise, well grounded in solid concepts for the land and river. The terms, graphics and text do a good job of communicating thoughts and ideas on development and treatment of the river environment.
Turenscape appears to have the best comprehensive plan. I like how it incorporates the park and a new built urban environment to compliment. Along the river northward would be a great place to add some urban-infill housing (especially considering the bike pathways leading to downtown). I particularly like the “corridor” idea – bringing residential, education, art and commerce within the park setting.
I am most excited by the prospect of the Riverfirst proposal by TLS/KVA, particularly the Green Port.
It is funny that nobody notice that all the firms have one common connection; Harvard University, Graduate School of Design. Good design is great but local design is better. The only submission head team member with a Mississippi river background is Ken Smith, I believe he is originally from Iowa. It is a sad state of affairs where of lack of self confidence from the city of Minneapolis, to extract big idea designs from around the world and feel that a local design firm could not accomplish the same result sends a clear message to the rest of the country. No talent lies in the streets of this city. To put a national name brand design team on a project, what does that mean, more investors, more national recognition?
I am mystified why a design college would solicit ideas from entities outside their jurisdiction. Is that not what the U of M ‘College of Design’ does? Design! A project like this is extremely unique. Why was this competition not kept in-house so the people that know the banks of the Mississippi, the people that actually use the area and have to live, work and visual experience the design proposal as it matures have their day in the spot light?
These are great questions to ask of all cities. Why hire outside the region? Is there not enough talent residing here in Minnesota? So that’s the result, some good ideas, some bad ideas but no clear winner. That’s my rant. Think globally but act locally.
Your parochial question and rant are old and have been asked before, all the time, to give preference to parochial nativism. In fact, it’s the confidence and courage of the civic leaders of Minneapolis to go scoping for great ideas from the rest of the country and the world for the development of this park.
You also allegedly magnified the Harvard “connection”. You need to be more specific about it; what are you implying or even accusing?
Good design IS simply good design, and you must back up for your opinion that “local”
is “just better”.
Some of the proposed riverside arrangements of open space and habitat are unlikely to work in terms of river geomorphology, with localised acceleration of sedimentation (see Turenscape scheme for example)
There is often an emphasis on interesting ‘helicopter pilot’ views rather than functionality at ground level for people and wildlife.
There are examples of language which suggests a desire to bring about ecological restoration (which implies the use of native species in natural associations) and then illustrations which show monocultures or low diversity plantings designed primarily for show.
I would like to understand the true cost of the proposals. Specifically, are we taking private property (and the property taxes that are produced) for these projects? What are the ongoing operating costs for the projects? Our city has a history of producing wonderful architectural structures that could not be supported operationally (The new downtown Library comes to mind). The Park Board has already purchased Sherer Brothers Lumber site (how much property taxes did we lose on that transaction. What other purchases are required and at what cost? As a City of Minneapolis resident, I want spending reduced NOT increased. How are we paying for this? Please don’t do anything without ALL costs understood.
What an overall thoughtful process—-with alot of good ideas provided by all the teams. As a development professional, I think the TLS/KVA group has developed a vibrant vision and realistic understanding of the area’s strengths and development potential. Their plan incorporates strong anchors, integral connections, and a practical balance between employment, housing, community infrastructure, and a “green-based” river transportation component. It’s an exciting plan for the riverfront.
What a great bunch of ideas. Looked at them all online which loses some of the power of the Walker event I’m sure, but still, great. Each proposal has at least a nugget or two, while none seem completely feasible. But inspiration needs to go beyond feasibility. I found the TLS/KVA proposal most impressive. They really understand restoring the health of the river (within local confines) and express a realistic understanding of the transportation assets and economic development potential of the area. Compliments to all teams.
The recognition of Dakota people in the Tom Leader Studio proposal is dramatically signicant. They offer an idea for honoring Spirit Island, but with the caveat that Dakota people must be consulted and that Dakota artists and makers should create whatever is chosen to recognize the loss of Spirit Island.
And, of course, the integration of digital media can more easily allow the presence of Dakota (and other indigenous) voices AT the sites.
Ignoring the people with the longest relationship with this place is a longstanding strategy that Minnesota and the Twin Cities must rectify to move into the future most successfully.
I think some vital additions to their lists of partners should be made…but that part’s easy, yes?
There is deeper recognition of what this place IS in this proposal than in others. It is a significant start to healing in this place.
How interesting the differences in each project…while each one took time to inform with history and purpose, the one design project that took an entirely different approach is from TLS/KVA. Here they managed to convey all the information through music and graphics and a constant sense of movement…well, like a river flows!
There was a purpose and calm sense about what they are proposing to create. For myself as an avid runner who enjoys being outside (even here in winter wonderland Minnesota!) i love love love knowing that i could actually run along-side the river. Bridging the divide that has created separate communities divided by the river can’t help but have a positive effect for all involved.
The eco-system, the “green aspect” is of course, paramount and pervasive in our culture at this time; as it should be.
In reviewing each of the finalists submissions, I feel strongly that the creativity and sophistication presented from TLS/KVA is the best. (but i did enjoy hearing the Talking Heads in the Ken Smith Workshop!)
The TLS/KVA River First design posits the best balance between the needs of the community and the needs of our environment. The plan provides space both for economic development and for recreation while remaining sensitive to the wetland ecosystem and the endangered species that live there. Minneapolis needs this kind of green space!
I appreciate the integrated approach River First takes with regards to the history of the river’s commerce and ecology while outlining a well blended vision that is thoughtful and sustainable. Life around the Mississippi seems very accessible.
I really like the idea of covering a section of I94 to create a better connection with North Minneapolis neighborhoods. I don’t know if anyone has already mentioned this, but this is exactly what Duluth did with I35 and reconnected their downtown with their waterfront. You seriously have no clue that you are atop of the freeway. I think that something should be placed atop that would draw people to congregate. Their proposal suggested athletic fields, but the athletic fields at Farview Park are only one block away. Too duplicative. I would suggest relocating the farmer’s market from a gritty location underneath a freeway overpass to one where visitors could easily walk down to the riverfront parkland or hike to the the top of Farview Hill – the historic high point of Minneapolis with a dramatic view of the skyline.
A friend just sent me a link to this competition. The ideas are very exciting. Reconnecting the river with north minneapolis would be such a positive step. Having canoed the river, I know it is very beautiful, but it’s also tragically cut off. The two needs that strike me immediately on that part of the city are how I-94 cuts off north minneapolis and how difficult it is to even see the river above Broadway.
Developing a farmers market near the river is a great idea, and I love the thought of the Bell Museum moving off of the U of MN campus and into the community. The Scherer park project in TLS/KVA reminds me of the Danube Island redevelopment they did in Vienna. The formerly industrial waterfront was turned into this great urban playground.
I hope some of these great ideas can be implemented soon!
After viewing all four proposals, I believe TLS/KVA’s is the most appropriate, being bold yet realistic. The integration of the river with the city was done very gently. The Turenscape proposal is great, but a bit too much. One wonders if it would be possible to pull it all off.
I think this design is the most visionary and looks the most into the future which is essential especially considering that the project will be very significant in terms of impact .
The planning for phases is pretty impressive. The designer has deep understanding on the local natural, social, and economic context and blend many smart thoughts together successfully. I think this proposal is the best one. Appreciate Turenscape’s contribution to a more sustainable riverfront urban area.
I think the Riverfirst design by TLS/KVA is the best design for the city and makes the best use of the river. I can’t wait to come to downtown Minneapolis and see it finished.
I think the RiverFirst design by TLS/KVA is the best design. It makes the best use of the river and the surrounding area. I am looking forward to coming downtown to see the completed project.
I’m looking forward to seeing the first plan Above the Falls done first before they make plans for any new ones
All entries revel thoughtful consdieration of ways our riverfront can be developed. The TLS/KVA team, more than others, however, shows an understanding of critical issues facing Minneapolis’ northside. Linking the northside to the River and the rest of the city is a chief concern. The Bell Museum (or some other significan institutional use), which will attract visitors is a missing incredient that will positively impact perceptions of the northside. Consideration was also given to Nice Ride, an ongoing endeavor on the northside.
The plan for the Scherer site, with housing, is another plus.
They should finish the land they took with eniment domain on 13th Ave During the river plan a few yaers back first. before they plan on more housing.
Excellent concepts! The best part is that we can evaluate and propose portions – but that there is an overall vision is excellent. Each one has great ideas for embracing the future. However, personally, think that this watershed for most of north america can still be a river that is a working river and still be a recreational and enviromental focal point. Do not see them as disparate entitites. The rails and river are more efficient than highways so I hope we do not gentrify ourselves out of economic viability. We need to keep industry as well as improve the environment –
I appreciate the vision of TLS/KVA – especially the urban agriculture aspect and integration of people & ecology of the site. Thier overall vision seems to be going in the direction that we need, as a society, to go.
It seems like TLS/KVA is really taking into account uniting the uses and infrastructure while preserving and fixing the natural areas properly. The areas of use are separate but flow together well as a whole. I think the biggest issue facing us today is integrating all aspects of life, downtown, parks, industrial, etc. in a cohesive way that benefits the ecosystem as well.
TLS/KVA seem to be the the only team interested in making places. The rest of the entries prefer a strategy of diagram overlay that–although pretty–hardly accounts for issues on the ground, much less issues of scale or material. The TLS/KVA manages to maintain an clear framework within which a landscape can grow that is at times sensible, at other times surprising. I would also add that of all the teams, TLS/KVA seems to have the most convincing portfolio of real experience to back up their proposal.
I was blown away by all the work that went into this presentation but there were two that I thought were best suited. Ken Smith was my favorite followed by Turenscape. Both had elements of Wilderness which I appreciated. As well as “nature play” which is so important to urban living.
For a brief second I saw a reference to a farmer’s market on the west side of the Mississippi in North Minneapolis. Is there a reason why the Schere parcel is not in the discussion to house a year round farmer’s market? Thanks, Dan Brady, past member of the Northeast Minneapolis Farmer’s Market
That would be a great idea
Living right by the river, I am extremely pleased this proposal was chosen. Seeing all the finalists’ presentations I thought the TLS/KVA team put the river and the environmental aspects first. Environmental impact needs to be our priority in this time and age and I understand this design team will ensure the health of our river for us and future generations to enjoy. Bravo!
This is really a bunch of nothing. we have had a project in the works for years called above the falls. It was drawn up and praised for winning national awards. the project encluded the grain belt brewery renovation. which was done it also happened to take a block of housing and business building that where taken by eniment domain. the city purchased these homes and tore them down. Now we have feild with a fence. a big waist and my property tax got to go up to pay for nothing. this same proposal that we fought at the time wanted to take Dusty’s bar as well as the building next to them up to 13th I’m sure glad that did not happen. So things sometimes sound and look good but Far from Bravo!
I hope your plans will maximize habitat along the river as a natural buffer and not just for street runoff.
And please landscape with primarily native grasses and plants so you can minimize watering and the “flocks” of Canada geese that would certainly love to reside (and poop) on the nice turf grass and adjoining paths! (already a recognized problem in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area)
Thanks in advance for your consideration!
If its like past plans it will leave much green space They have had a river plan for years called Above the Falls they have already taken some land from their owners many who grew up in the houses taken away by eniment domain and left nothing but a field still there over 6 years later fenced in and unable to use.
Congrats to TLS KVA!! I am very excited to see what the city will do now.
I hope nothing they have already had a project called above the falls in progress for years that they left hanging after taking land by eniment domain
TLS was awesome.
Thank you Turenscapes for thinking OUTSIDE the box, finally someone who get’s it and who’s not mired in the way Minneapolis has always done things !!!
I think this plan should have been extended to the I694 bridge in Brooklyn Center.
What’s with only ONE public meeting for this Item on December 7th?
They should have had at least 6 mos-1 year of public input, especially folks on the North & NE sides who actually live there.
The screening should have been done before any vote was taken, let the people vote for the ones they like after each screening this month.
I would vote for Turenscapes !!!
They love to sneak things like this by the people. A few years back they had a plan much like this called above the falls it included the renovation of the Grainbelt Brewery. we fought part of the plan and saved Dusty’s bar from being taken away by eniment domain. the houses and building that was on 13th Ave where not as lucky and where bought by the city and torn down. now for at least 6 yrs we have gotten to look at a empty feild that is fenced in. Their resoning was it would bring more tax money in but since it was never finished the only tax increase has been the people that had owned in the neighborhood in the first place taxes went up. And most of the people that were all gung ho on the project have left the area leaving us with the mess they created.
I liked Turenscape the best.
Pingback: The last couple of weeks were very exciting for Tom Leader Studio and Kenny & Violich Architeture (TLS/KVA). | Proverb ~ The Truth Made Simple
Pingback: What Should the Future Minneapolis Riverfront Be? Ask the Public! | River Life
Paid Surveys: Earn $30,000 Or More Per Week: http://v.ht/29Grt?&bakqa=slJNUzLzz1
Поздравляем! Вы получаете супер бонус! Переходите и проверьте: message https://google.com/
строительство деревянных домов – строительство деревянных домов, строительство каркасных домов в екатеринбуге