75th StreetSo the scoop on the bike trail status after the last city meeting November 28th is – no bike trail. That is, there will be a bike path on 76th Street but not on 75th Street. Which means no bike trail at least connecting Minnetonka to the Mississippi River, which is what they are toteing this bike trail for. What they are doing on 75th Street is “saying” that there is a bike path without actually making one or making room for bike paths. The road way on 76th Street is 38′ wide with 12′ of the being designated as bike paths. The road on 75th Street is 26′ wide total with no space designated for bike paths. There is simply no room for bikes on this road with cars. Their stated reason – there isn’t enough traffic to justify a separate bike path – does not fly with their logic for deciding to narrow the road in the first place, which is as a traffic calming measure. If there is no traffic on that street why does it need to be calmed? Obviously it does need calming since it is being used by cars looking for a way to bypass congestion on 76th Street at Best Buy. So it does need a bike path.

76th Street - Lyndale to NicolletIt was interesting listening to some of the neighbors complaining about bikes even suggesting that they were toy of the rich and Richfield will never be THAT fancy. Again, biking is a very viable mode of transportation, and Minneapolis, the second biggest biking city in the nation is right next door. Richfield is biking distance to downtown and has a large business community that biking can access long 494, if Richfield is going to attract young professionals to live here, we need to make it attractive for them. It is a good community development decision.

Part one of a Richfield couple’s Bike Ride and their efforts to get to Uptown from Richfield. Found this on YouTube and thought it was quite funny given the anti-biking sentiment I felt at the last 76th Street Streetscape meeting November 28th and statements that biking just isn’t done in Richfield. Now we have video proving otherwise! Bikers in their natural Richfield habitat.

 

Redevelopment of the Hampton Inn into a Sherition Four Points HotelOk, this is off topic. It is between 77th Street and 494 but still it is about development that can impact the neighborhood. The Richfield city council approved a parking variance and addition for the Hampton Inn at 7745 Lyndale Avenue. What does this mean for 76th Street? Not much really. I don’t think many of us park there, though I did have a friend that stopped in on a regular basis for a free continental breakfast. However, they are selling the building and are building a kitchen addition to make the building more attractive to buyers. The addition will not impact the 76th Street neighborhood, but the building’s sale could, and the fact there was a public hearing with little publicity on the addition and no one showed up is disturbing. Not so much on this property but what kind of public input will the city seek out on other development on 77th that WILL impact the neighborhood?

aka: Artist Housing

One of the issues of the 76th Street Developments is “What kind of affordable housing?” There are many kinds. At the meetings the developers and city staff quickly went to the old favorite, “more senior housing” option. While housing for seniors needed in the metro area, it appears to be unevenly distributed with Richfield having far more than its far share not only serving its own seniors but the seniors of other communities as well. A better option is to develop affordable housing for young professionals which has never been considered an option in development in Richfield. Whereas not much growth occurs after the development of senior housing, neighborhood development typically follows within three years of the completion of an artists’ live/work project. This development in turn helps generate other cultural activity and creates a general increase in visitors to the area.

One of the problems is location, would artists really be interested in locating to Richfield? A Washington Post article “Giving Artiest Space to Create” writes about that issue with a work/live artist housing development, the “Douglass Street project” in the Washington DC area.

The biggest downside of the Douglass Street project is its location. While Mather Studios is in the heart of downtown, the Douglass Street project is in Northeast, near New York Avenue.

According to Corbett, that has not deterred artists from trying for the work-live spaces. “The bottom line for artists is about affordability and functionality.” It’s often difficult to make those two factors work, Corbett said, so “generally artists are willing to compromise on location.” Her organization, she said, keeps an eye out for publicly owned property. “That’s the real difficulty in D.C. Unlike Baltimore, we just don’t have any kind of inventory of low-rent industrial space for artists.”

While developing artist housing in Richfield isn’t going to create a “great sucking sound” of artists leaving Minneapolis-St. Paul, there is a real viable need for artist housing in the south suburbs near accessible transportation. The site at 76st and Lyndale is the perfect location. Most people think of artist housing as big lofts in old warehouses, and for a time, when no one wanted old warehousing, that was the case Some time back in the 1980s warehouse space got sheik and artists got the boot out of Minneapolis’ Warehouse District and St. Paul’s Lowertown by developers looking to create “loft-style living” for those with big money to live the loft lifestyle. Only a lucky few artists today live in old warehouses mostly because of efforts of organizations like Artspace. While artist space is still being developed out of renovated old buildings, more and more artist housing that is being developed today is new housing, such as work/live housing on Chicago Avenue in Minneapolis or the Hiawatha Artist Lofts in Seattle.

  • Richfield must position the area as attractive as possible to young professionals. Work/live spaces help fulfill this goal.
  • Richfield can be home to artists, priced out of trendy neighborhoods in search of a lower cost of living/workspace and higher quality of life.
  • Many artists support themselves with second jobs, many of those jobs are out in the suburbs. Higher gas prices lend to the appeal of living closer to work.

One block north of 76th Street on Pleasant Avenue is Lincoln Park or Lincoln Field Park. Many neighbors do not even know of its existence, those that do do not think much of it as it tops the list of parks in the worst state of repair in Richfield. In recent years the city has begun to develop plans to renovate Lincoln Park and had attempted to procure funds from the state to contribute $550,000 to renovate the park as part of a deal for the city lost out when the Metropolitan Airports Commission canceled Richfield’s lease on property that had been used for over 40 years with 13 ball fields, a golf course, and community gardens (city has committed to matching the state’s contribution for a total of $1,100,000). However, this did not pass and now the city is putting away the money a little bit at a time to raise funds for the renovation.

Opportunities
Next to Lincoln Park is Woodlawn Terrace Trail Court. While not a nuisance it no longer fits the area that has grown around it and it the age and deterioration of the manufactured homes put it as risk of future blight. The city has an opportunity if Woodlawn becomes available for redevelopment to become a valuable addition to the park and with the addition of new affordable housing replacing the city maintenance facility at 76th and Pleasant Avenue and 76th and Lyndale Avenue the city would not only be replacing the loss of older affordable housing stock with new housing but they will be increasing the number of affordable housing units.

The initial design calls for four ballfields but there is a plan now that calls for three ballfields and a playground after neighbors expressed interest in having the playground that was removed replaced.

lincoln-01.jpg

lincoln-02.jpg
dcp03647.JPGdcp03650.JPGLincoln Park sign

Really.

Given the controversy over the other two round-a-bouts on 66th Street and Portland and 17th Avenues, by a small yet vocal group of regulars, I think it would be great to put round-a-bouts on 76th Street and Lyndale, Nicollet, Portland, and 12th avenues just to get them going again. Otherwise, what would the Richfield Sun have to write about?

fear the round-a-bout….The 17 Avenue Round-a-bout has more sidewalks than just about anywhere else in Richfield, another reason anti-around-a-bout activists are probably angry…

Don’t get me wrong, I am happy to see the citizen participation, however, its the disingenuousness about their reasons that gets me. Much of their argument against round-a-bouts is that is is unsafe for the children having to bike and walk around it. What the real issue is they are to embarrassed to admit is that they are afraid is as the saying goes… “an old dog can’t learn new tricks”. I believe most are afraid of it because it is new and different. Some of these same people are great activists against the city government “wasting” money on more sidewalks and on bike paths. So much for ‘who will protect the children…’

Map showing road redevelopment and sewer work

In addition to the 76th and Pleasant/Lyndale developments, the city of Richfield will be redeveloping the 76th Street street-scape, downgrading it from a four lane to a two lane road because with the completion of 77th street as the main artery 76th no long carries as much traffic and does not need to be as wide as it is. The reconstruction at this time is being prompted by having to do sewer work under most of 76th.

What’s it going to do with all that extra road? The city has come up with five comprehensive plans reducing the road and adding green space and possibly bike paths and sidewalks. However, at a meeting of the Commission on City Services which will be making a recommendation to the city council, and at public meetings about the issue, several complained about how no one uses bikes for commuting and bikes are for kids and recreation. Considering that Minneapolis is the number two biking city in the nation I would beg to differ on that issue. While what is needed in Richfield more are north-south bike routes, a east-west bike route is very welcome, Many businesses such as Best Buy, MOA, Northwest Airlines as well as hotels and retail are along 494 which runs parallel to 76th Street making the idea of a supporting commuting bike traffic a reality.

I fear that “bikes are for kids” is a prevailing view in Richfield (remember this is a city that fights building sidewalks for pedestrians). The several options that have been presented, some have commuting bike paths on the street, some have bikes relegated to extra wide sidewalks and one has street parking and no bike paths all together. Unfortunately, it appears there are no advocates for commuting bike paths in Richfield and the city is saying that it is either the Metropolitan Council or the Three Rivers Park District  advocates having the bike paths off the street and  on a combined bikepath/sidewalk which I find hard to believe. My experience with combined walkways/bikeways is that pedestrians do not make room for bikes and commuting bicyclists wind up going on the road anyways, but in this case the road will be narrowed so much it will make on road biking a danger. This a  great opportunity to create a commuting bike trail that parallels 494 along Richfield. The next meeting on November 28 at Richfield CIty Hall 6700 Portland Ave at 6pm.

Options/opinions…

Option A: the same folks that were trash talking the bike paths were most happy about this plan With limited sidewalks and bike paths but lots of parking. Given the chronic shortage of parking in Richfield I can see why they were salivating over this plan. I can never find parking by my house and often have to park blocks away from my home. Actually there might be a need to add parking by Lyndale and by the two churches but all along 76th Street is simply over kill.

Option B: Probably the best option for the creatively challenged. However it is a good solid design that has its benefits. It separates bike from sidewalks, and it adds a boulevard buffer zone separating the street from the houses. This would work as long as the city and neighbors actually grow grass and trees instead of the asphalt boulevards that are all the rage in Richfield.

Option C: I am a sucker for boulevards. Any one that has visited Highland Park and seen Ford Parkway or Highland Parkway amongst housing styles similar to Richfield will see how a boulevard in the middle can class up a neighborhood. However, it combines bike and walkways instead of putting it on the street. BTW: I tend to think it is a good idea to keep young bikers and kids with training wheels off the bike path used by adult bikers. Little biker kids will still rule on the sidewalk while the adults take to the street.

Option D: A plan I can love. Again, the city and neighbors have to get over their fetish for asphalting over boulevards though.

Option E: This on the surface it is very appealing until you realize a few things. First, bike AND sidewalk are combined and only on one side of the street. Second, in some instances that road will actually bring traffic closer to the houses. Third, again more of the parking that we can’t get enough of. Fourth, privatization of public space. Not problem for libertarians that find pubic parks appalling anyways, but I find it a bit disconcerning and frankly given that many do not maintain the side yards or boulevards along 76th street anyways what makes anyone think they will groom an extra 10 feet any better?

At the public meetings/workshops held by the city of Richfield and the Corridor Housing Initiative the words “affordable housing” were stressed again and again, and those words were met with suspicion by neighbors attending. Unspoken were fears of subsidized housing “Section 8” housing, prison and drug halfway houses, rental property packed with uncontrollable tenants that become a neighborhood blight and nuisance soon after it is built.

History of affordable housing

In truth, most of Richfield was subsidized back in the day, but back then no one looked at the VA loans and federally insured mortgage programs which reduced mortgage leaders risk as “government welfare” but they were and they worked. Richfield developed into a cute bedroom community with returning veterans being able to afford the thousands of new houses been built in spite of the large scale housing shortages that occurred during World War II.

Richfield is now an inner ring suburban taking on the traits and trends that once only effected its neighbor to the north, Minneapolis. One thing that hasn’t changed sadly is a lack of affordable housing. However, the general attitude to subsidized affordable housing has become more negative. It is probably most certainly in part to early public housing programs which dumped subsidized housing in one or two neighborhoods, creating instant slums, creating problems so deep no neighborhood or city could effectively deal with them. Planning, in part due to lawsuits preventing dumping, have changed how cities deal with housing.

Livable Communities Act

The Minnesota Legislature created Livable Communities Act. In that act local Twin City government had to come up with effective affordable housing goals for the upcoming decade and LCA provides funds to communities to assist in the carrying out of those plans.

This is a voluntary, incentive-based approach where the communities are offered carrots, such as funds for redevelopment of blighted sites, to create affordable housing.

While this may work well in general, it does have a few gaffs that I can see, one is that communities that may need the development the most get the most affordable housing, while not the dumping as with public housing projects in the past it still creates concentrations of poverty in some communities.

Because it is voluntary, affluent Twin City communities because of their wealth and little need for state money, can (and do) opt out or set very low affordable housing goals.

What is “Affordable”?

The Metro Council considers it “affordable” if it costs 30 percent or less of the total income of a family of “low or moderate income”. So if you create McMansions for multimillionaires you are still out of luck getting LCA funds.

So what is Low income in relation to affordable housing?
For home ownership the Metro Council defines it as housing that is affordable to buyers earning 80% of area median income — in 2007, a household earning this income could afford a home costing approximately $206,800.

For rental housing the Metro Council defines it as housing that is affordable to renters earning 50% of area median income — in 2007, a household earning this income could afford to pay $883 per month for rent and utilities for a two-bedroom unit.

So what does this mean for Richfield and the developments for 76th Street?

The developments seem to be guided by the City of Richfield’s attempts to meet the goal set for it in Livable Communities Act (757 owner units and 0 rental of which at 256 units built 33.8% progress to goal has been made)

It is hard to sort through the data and I am sure I am making a mess of it but it appears Richfield though not having met its goal, is doing well. The Metropolitan Council Housing Performance Score for Richfield was 77 out of 100 with 24.3% of this units affordable at 50% or less of Regional Family Income in 2000. However, this seems to be unequal between owner and rental affordability . Only 9.1% of owner housing units in Richfield are deemed affordable where as 55.7% of the rental units are deemed affordable. However, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a rental population in Richfield that needs to be helped, according to United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2000 over 1,600 were either spending over 30 percent of there income on housing or in conditions of over crowding in rental housing in Richfield.

Um, yeah, sure so?…

Richfield, does have an need for affordable housing to serve its own population, as do most communities and while most of its focus has gone into end-of-lifecycle housing resources little has been allocated elsewhere to singles or families with children.

It appears that the biggest problem is with owner housing and that there is a good deal of affordable rental housing in Richfield. However, according to the numbers that does not mean there is not a problem with affordable rental or no need to create it.

 

I have taken down my forum and have replaced it with this blog. The numbers showed that people were going to this site and viewing the forum but not participating, which I am not really surprised at. I decided it would be better would to blog and I can just post information, links, resources, as well as my ramblings related to the development going on at 76th Street, if viewers want to respond they comment on my postings otherwise happy reading.

A couple of resources to get going are:

Corridor Housing Initiative (CHI) web site featuring their work with Richfield (thus far)

As the City of Richfield describes it:

“The Corridor Housing Initiative (CHI) is a proactive
planning process to assist the planning, design,
and development along major corridors.”

Basically they are a process convened by the Center for Neighborhoods to go into neighborhoods and be some what of a mediator/coordinator between city, developers, and the neighborhood.

At worst, CHI may be bit of a dog and pony show if the city that sponsors it really has no intent to actually listen to the community and already has its preconceived notions on what would be good for the area and is using CHI simply as a tool to show that they had “citizen involvement”

At best, it really is a great way to get people to become involved in the discussion of what is developed in their neighborhood.

Whether it is successful at what it does depends on the extent the community, if they care enough to turn out for the process and of the agenda and experience of the city staff and politicians.

« Previous Page