CCP 08-20-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . CLOSE WINDOW. Editorial: Metro 2030 / A better approach to development 08/09/2002 Here's a question for the next 30 years: Are you happy with the quality of growth the Twin Cities has experienced recently and are you willing to accept more of the same? Or do you think there's a better way? We think there's a better way. Acquiescing to more of the same freeway congestion and more of the same solid suburbia stretching to the horizon will only result in a bigger, blander, road-weary place not worth living in. Metro residents who cherish quality of life for themselves and their children should demand instead a hometown with better transportation options, greater protection for nature's beauty, more variety in housing and more convenient, walkable communities. That these aims can be achieved for billions of dollars less than continuing the current course is the central point of Blueprint 2030, a draft report now being debated by the Metropolitan Council. If adopted, this impressive document would signal an important turn for the Twin Cities. No longer would the focus be on how much to grow, but how best to grow. Rather than allowing suburbanization to advance like Napoleon's army along a broad front, the new strategy would intrude more gently on Minnesota's fragile landscape, skipping over wetlands and other natural features while concentrating development more efficiently and conveniently -- along transit corridors, for example, or in new villages that blend housing, shopping, jobs and parks in close proximity. These villages would match Minnesotans' preference for small-town life, whether in old city neighborhoods, revamped suburban strip malls or on farmlands that aren't necessarily adjacent to existing suburbia. They wouldn't entirely replace the post-1945-style subdivisions that Minnesotans regard as normal. But they would respond to a changing marketplace that demands more multifamily housing and an alternative to the auto-only lifestyle that's now approaching the end of its 50-year cycle. Consider the examples below: Current growth tends to ignore older communities (A), push outward with seas of . single-family homes (B), conswne farmlands and natural features (C), separate housing from shopping, jobs, schools and other destinations, and require long and frequent car trips. The new growth scenario reinvests in older places (A), still provides single- family homes (B), conserves more open spaees, mixes additional housing with shopping, offices, schools and medical care in walkable, convenient communities (C), and provides a balance of roads and transit to knit together the metro region.