July 2008 letters, correction
High-density housing part of Cedar-Riverside problem
I’ve lived in Cedar-Riverside over 30 years and remember the West Bank when it was the Twin Cities’ Greenwich Village, full of students, artists of all kinds, and radicals. Before that, it was Scandinavians, Germans, union organizers and other working poor. The West Bank was always an entertainment area, where folks bought liquor, drugs, and even sexual favors, often between their after-work hours and their homes in the suburbs.
The demographics have changed. The immigrants have different faces, skin color, languages, clothing and customs. Many live here, no matter what color, because they are poor. Conflict between residents and bar patrons is not new. The girls may get prettier at closing time, but the streets get louder. Car doors slam, people shout, some fight, and others relieve themselves on lawns between the bars and their cars. I’ve seen it all.
But, the West Bank has also been the home of good music — all kinds. (Remember Cedarfest?) The bars serve as training-ground-employment for many musicians. Lively, innovative theaters, unique shops and restaurants — and the bars — draw customers with money, a commodity in short supply on the West Bank.
Long before Abdillahi Nur, executive director of African-American Community Services, began expressing his on-target concerns about the existence of high-residential impact housing, like Riverside Plaza, in the midst of Cedar-Riverside, neighborhood groups in the 1970s were expressing theirs. Nonetheless, Riverside Plaza and the likes are here. Some wish they weren’t. But where would all the poor people go?
The current Cedar-Riverside problems are exacerbated by overcrowding and cultural clashes. Local businesses and residential leaders work hard at reconciliation, but the problems loom large and may need more drastic intervention — an intervention that would decrease high-density Riverside Plaza by structural redesign and include resident relocation to more desirable locations — a major and costly change, but one that might make many people happier and solve some of their problems.
— Carol Cochran, Cedar-Riverside
Written evidence of sincerity not encouraging
[In the May issue of The Bridge,] Renee Wegener characterizes my March letter (apropos the two “restorative justice” letters in a previous issue) as a “discouraging attack.” Re-reading it, I am reminded that its primary target was the current state of higher education, for which “discouraging” might be a fitting adjective.
All that Ms. Wegener says about the value of the restorative justice program, and the hard work of its participants, may well be true; I had only the written evidence to go on, which was not encouraging. Not only were the letters badly written, they raised questions about the writers’ sincerity, suspicions that might have been allayed by a better grasp of the written language on the writers’ part. In life, as in school, we are graded on our visible accomplishments, not our good intentions. And to most readers of The Bridge, these two individuals will be known only through their published works.
— Michael Kincaid, Prospect Park
Light-rail could be good for University Avenue, problematic for Washington
I read Katie Gumpertz’ letters with interest, and I must disagree with her assumption that rents will automatically go up once the light rail down University Avenue starts up.
Along Hiawatha, there have been some new apartments and condos going up, but much of the same retail businesses located between Lake and 50th streets on Hiawatha are still there. Two-plus years of light rail has not chased any of them away.
University Avenue — especially between Prospect Park and Midway — is in need of some serious rethinking. Many larger buildings are empty, and the neighborhoods on either side have seen better and safer days. Light rail will extend university employees and students into these neighborhoods and will do a lot to spruce up and revitalize University Avenue.
Ms. Gumpertz does make a fair point about the possibility of greatly increased rents along the avenue. Well, here’s where the city of St. Paul can do something about making sure that only after the properties are greatly improved can the landlords jack up the prices. (Many of these larger manufacturing buildings need to be gutted and broken up into suites.)
One final point I’d like to make is that, from where I sit, I agree that sending the light rail through campus along Washington Avenue will be problematic, due to the width of Washington Avenue. My idea (which believe me, [Met Council Chair] Peter Bell would be soundly against) would’ve been to start the light rail at Lake Harriet, running along the “historical” street-car tracks, around Lakewood to Hennepin and down Hennepin to St. Anthony, right on University Avenue to Dinkytown, and then through campus via a right-of-way, provided by the U, to Stadium Village, and then to University Avenue and Downtown Saint Paul. My idea would’ve provided a greatly needed version to Uptown, Hennepin, East Hennepin, Dinkytown and the U campus.
The U certainly has ample, hardly used roads between Dinkytown and Stadium Village, and it would’ve been most logical to provide a station at Dinkytown, as well as by the hospital. Mr. Bell railed at any plan other than his Washington Avenue baby, and it looks like he’s gotten his way. The U never ponied up any right-of-way through campus, so no one else had an idea quite like mine.
Bottom line, though: however the light rail gets from Downtown Minneapolis to the other side of campus, University Avenue can only be enhanced by this piece of urban civilization that it surely needs!
— Barry Margolis, Longfellow
Central Corridor ‘boondoggle’ would harm U of M, Prospect Park
Recent events regarding the Central Corridor routing have shown that, as Yogi Berra once stated, “It ain’t over till it’s over!”
I thought that Governor Pawlenty showed that he could recognize a bad idea when he saw one when he vetoed the Central Corridor legislation. Unfortunately, he appears to have caved in to special interests when he reversed his veto.
The Metropolitan Council had misled the University of Minnesota officials with their plan for a tunnel under Washington Avenue and later acted outraged when the university objected to being forced into a surface route. Rabidly eager politicians are in a rage over the consequential endangerment of nearly a half-billion-dollar handout from the federal government for the project, without seeming to understand that the funding would not be free. Each of us owes over $9,000 to foreign creditors, and the LRT boondoggle at any price would put each of us even more in debt.
The worst part of the Central Corridor proposal would be the Washington Avenue/University Avenue alignment. The University of Minnesota and its alumni association have cited the disastrous effects of an on-grade Washington Avenue route, and yet the University Board of Regents has now tentatively approved this route, although with apparent concern for the problems that may be incurred. Fortunately, their provisional resolution implies that they may later pull the plug if some of their concerns are not reconciled.
The Minneapolis University Avenue routing would have a bad effect for businesses and for the Prospect Park neighborhood. There may, of course, be no plans for condemnations of buildings along University Avenue.
Developers and other proponents of this catastrophic routing are not going to sound any alarms of this nature in their sales pitches. The narrow University Avenue routing would also be bad for the Prospect Park neighborhood because of parking problems, an increase in traffic and the splitting effect.
The best alignment would be to cross the river on the old St. Louis and Minneapolis/Great Northern bridge and then proceed through the Dinkytown trench, to the north of the TCF Stadium and two blocks north of University Avenue to Berry Street, one block inside St. Paul. There would be stations in Dinkytown, near the TCF Stadium and at Berry Street on University Avenue.
— Neal E. Simons, Prospect Park
Correction
In the July print edition of The Bridge, we crept closer to — but still missed — the correct spelling of Katie Muehlbauer, the wife of Bill Watkins, who was profiled in June cover story. We will include a correction in our August issue, as well.
last revised: July 17, 2008