First in a Series on Replacing the Minneapolis 2040 Plan with Alternative Ideas for Economic Growth

By Dennis Paulaha, PhD, Great River Coalition

Sometimes the truth is so obvious we overlook it.

And the truth about the Minneapolis 2040 Plan is that it was never about economic development.

It was about buses. It’s about trains, too, but it is mostly about buses.

They call it Transit Oriented Development.

It is based on the idea that a city (or Metropolitan area) developed around mass transit (and bike lanes) is better than a city based on roads and private automobiles.

And because Minneapolis, like every other city in the country (world), is a mixture of private automobiles, mass transit, bicycles, and sidewalks, it is easy, at least on paper, to make an honest, logical, fact-based argument that says if more people can be enticed into using mass transit, the economic benefits are likely to outweigh the costs, given the construction, maintenance, and environmental costs of highways, freeways, and private automobiles.

The question is: If the Transit Oriented Development people at the top (including the Metropolitan Council) want more people on buses and on light rail, where are the people going to come from?

Their answer is to eliminate single-family zoning and to encourage commercial development along bus and light rail lines.

By letting developers tear down single-family homes and replace them with three- to six-unit apartment buildings, they have more people. 

By letting developers build apartment buildings with more units on mass transit routes and within a block of mass transit routes, they have more people closer to transit routes. 

By not requiring developers to provide off-street parking, they make it more convenient for many people to walk to a bus stop than to a car parked a block or two away on the street. Also, as more and more people move into the new apartment buildings without off-street parking, cars will begin to fill up the streets, and many people will not want to drive to work for fear of not finding a somewhat convenient parking space when they return; others, as the planners seem to hope, may find it too difficult, expensive, and inconvenient to own a car at all.

What about the fact that up-zoning will lead to the gutting of North Minneapolis and force many black families out of the city or into homelessness? That’s good for the Transit Oriented Development idea, because every time a single-family house is replaced with a three- to six-unit apartment building, a family that may not use mass transit will move out and younger people who are more likely to use buses and light rail will move in.

What about the fact that up-zoning may lower single-family home values throughout the city and lead many middle- and upper-middle class people to move out of the city? That’s good too, for the Transient Oriented Development plan, because middle- and upper-middle class residents do not use mass transit, and the younger people who will replace them are more likely to do so.

In other words, neither the entire 2040 Plan required by the Metropolitan Council, nor the up-zoning policy in the Minneapolis 2040 Plan, was ever about trying to solve the affordable housing problem.

It was never about helping black communities.

It was never about helping other minority communities.

It was never about being environmentally responsible.

It was never about economic growth or development.

It was, from the beginning, a plan intended to intentionally, and unnecessarily, move tens-of-thousands of people into the city in ways that make it difficult to own cars so they will be pushed into using mass transit, especially city buses.

TWO BIG PROBLEMS

The proponents of Transit Oriented Development overlooked, or ignored, two big problems.

One, which they can be excused for overlooking, is that in a world preparing for ongoing pandemics, the economic benefits of mass transit and transit oriented development are likely to be overshadowed by the human and financial costs of having people crowded together in small spaces.

The other, which they have no excuse for ignoring, is that Transit Oriented Development for Minneapolis, which is at the core of the Minneapolis 2040 Plan, is based on two false premises or assumptions. One is that the City of Minneapolis is an autonomous economic, business, and social unit, which is not true for any city. The second is that the economic, financial, and social structure of the City of Minneapolis can be describes as some sort of wagon wheel, with downtown Minneapolis as the hub and all spokes (economic, financial, and social) connected to the hub, which is also not true of any city.

THE BEGINNING OF A BETTER PLAN

The truth is, no city, including Minneapolis, can be described as an island or as a wagon wheel, with people going back and forth from their homes to jobs in the city center.

Which means any plan to increase the economic, financial, and social wellbeing of a city must begin by throwing out the wagon wheel drawings and replacing them with reality.

Without seeing a sign, it is difficult to know when you cross the Minneapolis-St. Paul line during the ten to fifteen minute drive from one downtown to the other.

And with St. Paul to the East, there are great suburbs and small towns north, south, and west of Minneapolis. 

People who live in condos and apartments in downtown Minneapolis or in single-family homes, duplexes, apartments, and condos in single-family zoned neighborhoods throughout the city work in many different parts of Minneapolis, in St. Paul, in Minneapolis suburbs, in St. Paul suburbs, in small towns outside the suburbs, and in Wisconsin.

People who work in Minneapolis live in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minneapolis suburbs, St. Paul suburbs, small towns, and Wisconsin.

People who live in condos and apartments in downtown Minneapolis, or in single-family homes, duplexes, apartments, and condos in single-family zoned neighborhoods throughout the city and suburbs, take advantage of entertainment, restaurants, and bars throughout the the City of Minneapolis, including many located in suburbs and neighborhoods with single-family zoning.

The large department stores that, in the past, were the center of activity in downtown Minneapolis are gone, replaced by restaurants, bars, smaller retail, and entertainment.

The Mall of America, which is the largest retail space in the area, and which has more out-of-town visitors each year than Disneyland and Disneyworld combined, is in Bloomington, a suburb just minutes away by freeway from virtually anywhere in Minneapolis and most Minneapolis and St. Paul suburbs.

The stadiums for the Minnesota Twins and Minnesota Vikings are in downtown Minneapolis. So is the Minnesota Timberwolves arena. (Minnesota, not Minneapolis, because the fan base is not constrained by the city limits of Minneapolis, which is also the case for the Minnesota Wild whose arena is in St. Paul.) 

And office buildings that at one time would have been once clustered together in downtown Minneapolis are spreading into the suburbs.

All that is good for people who value a high quality of life. 

It is also good for business, because the quality of life in Minneapolis makes it easier for businesses to attract the best employees, whether they choose to live in condos or apartments in downtown Minneapolis or in single-family homes, duplexes, apartments, and condos in single-family zoned neighborhoods throughout the city and suburbs.

And it all exists today because of the protection afforded in the past by zoning laws and regulations.

Of course, like most cities in the world, Minneapolis has neighborhoods that have been in residential and commercial decline for years, a shortage of affordable housing, a recognition that it is necessary to do something about global warming, and the dishonor of having one of the worst records of racial disparity in the nation.

Good or bad, it is within that reality, where much of the city’s economic success can be credited to smart (meaning flexible) zoning laws and regulations that limited, but did not shut out, the ability of developers to buy and tear down single family homes and replace them with more expensive single-family homes, multi-family condos and apartment buildings, even commercial buildings, that any plan to improve the economy and the wellbeing of the people, and to address the affordable housing problem, the racial inequity problem, and the city’s impact on the natural environment, must begin.

Along with all that is a new variable that cannot be ignored, which is that any plans put together today cannot ignore the reality and uncertainty of living in a world that may face future pandemics. In fact, the above description of Minneapolis is a pre Covid-19 description.