Way back in June, Kim and I attended a public meeting about the future of UMore park. Several scenarios were presented with one being pushed to the public as the one that the University of Minnesota would most like to see become the final standard for sustainable living communities in Minnesota and the country. They were asking for public input but it was clear that they weren’t interested in any other option other than their “fourth scenario”.
Well, it appears that the University has decided on a plan and has presented it to the Board of Regents who will cement the plan following a vote in December. As I suspected, the plan is almost identical to scenario four that they were so insistent upon moving forward with. While completely unsurprising, it’s a little difficult for me to hail this as the greatest thing since sliced bread when the University really had no interest in allowing much public input outside of inconsequential details.
So, I took a look at the plan and placed it side by side with “Scenario #4” (page 34 of the PDF) which they provided back during the public meetings to see what was changed to meet public demand. Now I ask that you view both photos (if you click, you’ll see a slightly larger version of each) and tell me what theme you notice most at first glance.
Scenario #4 (June 2008)
UMore Park 2030 Vision?
So, what was it? What one thing did you notice most when viewing the planned vision for UMore park? Aside from that, does this plan look any different than any other master plan that has been moving forward, without much public or developer support, around the South Metro? Do you really find this to be some sort of enlightened plan that has never been seen before anywhere in the country or world?
Related posts:
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
November 28th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I noticed that the contaminated waste sites aren’t clearly labeled. A clearly defined carcinogenic area would certainly boost home sales in other regions.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Jeez, how many places of worship are needed on the newer version? Praying for protection from all the shit that’s in the soil?
November 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I think they both look basically the same. The 2030 plan seems to have less eco-industrial park and more commercial space than the other, but it could be the angles. Also the 2030 plan seems to have lost the regional shopping.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
St. Peregrine Laziosi is the patron saint of cancer. I hope they earmarked one of those “Place of Worship” sites for a nice church in his name.
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=237
November 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I generally suck at distinguishing small details in things like this. With that caveat, I’m not seeing any significant differences. Can we have the answer yet? :)
November 28th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
They’re both very curvy? Within each neighborhood node, there does appear to be a greater level of intraconnections between streets than typical suburban proposals. The level of interconnections between neighborhoods seems pretty typical, though. No, it’s not immediately obvious what makes this proposal any more sustainable than others.
When dealing with blob maps like these, the devil is really in the specific design details…. when they say “Residential – large lot” what exactly does that mean? When they say “Mixed Use”, what exactly does that mean? I’ve seen some pretty typical strip malls described as “mixed use” before.
November 29th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
For me it was all of the “Places of Worship”. I’m not quite sure why they were coerced into adding these. Personally, being that I am not religious, I see no reason to mandate the locations of churches in a planned community. Obviously someone who has clout w/the University got them to change their plan to include these — for no reason. If a community wants a “place of worship” in their area, they will be inclined to create one nearby and IMO it’s not something that needs to be planned 30 to 40 years in advance.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:11 pm
@Bill,
I’m not particularly religious myself, but I support their decision to include places of worship in the plan. Such facilities likely will be demanded by the residents of the town. It makes sense that they should thus be included so as to deal with the high traffic generated by churches and be sited away from incompatible uses. Of course, the plan also has a decidedly new urbanist bent. New urbanism relies heavily on creating a sense of place, in large part through strategic positioning of public buildings. In charming old towns, the churches often have a central location that really creates character even for those who do not participate in its services. If they’re trying to create a neighborhood with character, it makes sense to work that in.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Brandon, being that I’m not an urban planner I suppose I am just curious to their late addition. “Places of worship” were not included in any of the original four scenarios so it just seems out of place to add them now.
As far as “creating a neighborhood with character”, I just don’t agree. Community history, people and architecture create character. A comprehensive plan doesn’t do any of that and more than likely it’s just going to make neighborhoods exactly like what exists already in the MSP suburbs…boring and monotonous housing that all looks alike.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
While I have no “faith” in the actuall success of the planned community, it seems like if they are going to plan the community, they should plan on the need/demand for churches. I have yet to visit a community that does not have multiple churches, so its very logical that they be included in the plan.
A man without a plan is only half a man or some such saying. A plan without a church is only half a plan?
But really, if you are going to plan a whole town, it seems logical and the better question might be why did they not think of this in the 4 previous plans?
July 19th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
[...] UMore 2030 Vision: What Do You Notice?, 11/28/09 [...]