Right of Way by Jody Rader

RIGHT OF WAY//RIGHT AWAY creating neighborhood identity by pushing the public realm beyond the edges Jody Rader_MLA 2015 Capstone_Department of Landscape Architecture_College of Design_University of Minnesota

Table of Contents

Preface: Research

Inquiry-Based Research

Approach: Tactical Urbanism

Quantifying the Public Realm

Cover Photo: Corner of 5th Avenue and Portland Avenue

Starting the Conversation

Context

Landmarks

History of Elliot Park

Elliot Park Today

Goals to be Addrssed

Proposal

Residents-in-Residence

Office of Change

Master Plan

Food Park

Art Park

Shelter Park

Grow Park

Conclusions

Thank You

References

Image 1. (Cover) Parking lot at 5th Avenue South and 9th Street South

PREFACE: RESEARCH pursuing street credibility

Over the summer of 2014, I had a research assistantship with the Long Range Planning department at th City of Minneapolis. One of my tasks was to walk every street of the five neighborhoods of Downtown Minneapolis, documenting every form of public amenity in the right-of-way. This included street trees, bike racks, lights, benches, landscaping, and public art. I also took inventory of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;opportunityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sites found along the way. These are spaces adjacent to the public right-of-way, which could serve as places of additional programming or public amenity. Needless to say, I learned quite a bit about the ground-level scale of this city. Through quantification, evaluation, and documentation of right-of-way investments, I experienced the incredible discrepancy in amenity which exists in the public realm across the east-

west divide of Downtown Minneapolis. While counting benches and evaluating the quality of the landscaping condition (or lack thereof), I contemplated the values of the spaces which exist in the cracks of urban structures.

against the pedestrian in a dynamic urban setting. These spaces are not unique to Minneapolis; they seem to exist in mid- to large- sized cities that lack geographic or topographic boundaries constricting the densities of people, buildings, and vehicles.

Within three Downtown neighborhoods (Elliot Park, Downtown East and Downtown West), exists a seemingly over-abundant number of surface parking lots. These parking lots , and other underprogrammed spaces, are a visual blight to the pedestrian, as experienced in the streetscape. Primarily paved, these parcels contribute to poor water quality, lack of wildlife habitat, lowered real estate values, and poor urban aesthetics. This condition is a result of poor land-use planning and a lack of policy and enforcement regarding the design and construction of parking. It also points to an on-going battle of the personal automobile Public Realm inventory photos, courtesy of the City of Minneapolis

These parking lot parcels are generally privatelyowned properties which negatively affect the public. As urban populations grow, many of these properties are turned into housing opportunities, as savvy developers take advantage of changing land values. In the meantime, these lots continue to degrade the urban landscape. There is opportunity here (especially in Minneapolis), to re-purpose these contiguous open spaces creatively, into ways that serve the public, and act as an amenity to urban populations, while contributing to the functionality of movement, systems, and experiences in urban settings. Originally intended as ‘temporary’ uses for these vacant spaces, I intend to seek out alternative temporary programs and designs for these places which will positively influence future development of neighborhoods, addressing affordability, equity, aesthetics, and ecological function.

“GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF

A SMOOTHLY FUNCTIONING CONSCIENCE’”

SAMUEL MOCKBEE

Parking lot at Park Avenue and 10th Street South

Why am I drawn to these parking lots? First, I have a strong desire to work in my own backyard. Secondly, I welcome the challenge of working with sites that may not present obvious inspiration; the history and context here is not glamorous, the existing texture and materials are utilitarian and (some would say) aesthetically offensive. Most of the sites are described not by their qualities, but through their location in relation to buildings. One day, I was asked by a man on the street why I was taking photos of vacant parking lots in his neighborhood. The rebuttal to my response was “You sure have your work cut out for you. This place is full of boring.” However, I find the potential of these places exciting. I would dare not describe the sites as ‘blank slates’; the subtleties of the histories

and uses have proved to be fascinating at both the ground level and through academic research. This capstone project challenges the conventions of urban development policies and the top-down approach to the constructed environment, as well as the design process which happens concurrently. The areas of knowledge surrounding this topic include urban design, temporary and long-term programming, tactical urbanism, public and private realm amenities, resilient development practices and placemaking in the urban realm.

INQUIRY-BASED RESEARCH A series of research questions A. TEMPORALITY

B. INFRASTRUCTURE

Parking Day in San Francisco

Berkeley students prototype pavement with solar cells embedded in the pigment

Changing Users Changing Land Uses Acceptable Permeability

Lack of Investment Lack of Infrastructure Lack of Programming

1. What are methods to achieving value in a temporal landscape?

1. How can unused, vacant urban parcels be transformed to provide ecosystem services?

Parking lots in downtown Minneapolis serve as placeholders for future developments. They also have the potential to serve as catalysts for temporary uses and programming for the present, while laying the groundwork for intelligent and useful developments in the future. The following questions point to a focused area of research surrounding under-utilized urban spaces and their adjacencies. These questions contain overlapping relationships that guided the research and development of the project.

2. How can a place be used and maintained by transient populations, while keeping a sense of place, relative permanence, and safety?

2. How can these spaces harbor creativity and malleability in a place with harsh exterior conditions?

C. EQUITY

D. STEWARDSHIP

E. PLACE AND MATERIAL

Public transit patrons wait at the bus stop on 6th Street at Hennepin Medical Center

Made Here, an initiative to revive empty storefronts in Downtown Minneapolis with locally-produced art and crafts

Ryan Co. renderings of Gateway Park, a proposal adjacent to the new Vikings Stadium

Community Services Community Amenities

Ownership vs. Stewardship

Placemaking Idenity

1. How can unused, vacant urban spaces be transformed to provide social services?

1. Who are the stewards of informal urban spaces?

1. What are projections of these spaces?

2. Who influences the trajectory of vacant, under-utilized spaces? How does policy, speculation, and planning initiative direct the current and future uses of these spaces?

2. What is the history of these spaces? What remains (both physically and through memory) of former eras, which is influencing today and the future?

3. Where, and of what quality is private and public investment occurring in Downtown Minneapolis? Where are the deficits and surpluses?

3. Is it possible to assess the life-cycle of a parking lot? What are the construction components, constraints, material sources, and consequences of the existing conditions in the urban landscape?

2. How can temporary spaces and programs assist with adjacent issues of equity, affordable housing, and health for urban dwellers and users? 3. How can these spaces augment existing or inform future public transit networks?

APPROACH

Tactical Urbanism

Tactical urbanism is an emerging approach to combating both gentrification and the general misuse or under-utilization of public spaces (Courage 2013). Informal interventions in the urban fabric, generally instigated by artists, designers, activists and creatives, are introduced in public spaces, in an attempt to gain awareness, provide amenity, gather information, or call attention to a public space issue. This strategy is used to improve the livability, create identity or provide placemaking in urban areas. Tactical Urbanism was somewhat legitimized by The Street Plans Collaborative through a series of informal publications (2009to the present) aimed at showcasing a number of ‘tactical urbanists’. According to the authors, the following are the five characteristics of tactical urbanism: 1) A deliberate, phased approach to instigating change 2) The offering of local solutions for local planning challenges 3) Short-term commitment and realistic expectations 4) Low-risks, with possibly a high reward, and 5) The development of social capital between citizens and the building of organizational capacity between public-private institutions, non-profits, and their constituents. (Lydon 2009)

Supporters of tactical urbanism contend that these interventions are experimental, and provide an incremental and non-permanent approach to defining urban forms and processes. This contradicts the often ‘top-down’ approach to conventional planning, instigated by developers and big projects. These projects are often presented to a community, who then is ill-equipped to respond to such projects due to the scale. Residents and users of the urban realm are tasked with responding to proposals, instead of being engaged in the process of creating proposals. “If done well, such small scale changes may be conceived as the first step in realizing lasting change.” In this way, tactical urbanism is likely best used in combination with long-term planning efforts. (Lydon 2009) There is a wide range of activities which are classified as tactical urbanism, many of which have become commonplace in progressive cities across the world over the last five years. Park(ing) Day, Open Streets, pop-up businesses, parklets, guerrilla gardening, and food trucks are all well-known examples of tactical urbanism. In Minneapolis, JXTAposition Arts has actively engaged youths in Downtown Minneapolis (mostly along the Nicollet Mall corridor) to engage with strangers in artistic and creative ways as a method for engaging the public.

While the tenets of tactical urbanism are not new, the label and celebration of the idea is in the infant stages. As of yet, there is not a significant amount of research or theory to support the claims of the success of this strategy. Most of the information available is not critical of the actual, substantiated outcomes. (Courage 2013) The practice and execution of tactical urbanism was used as a catalyst for approaching the capstone project.

“…the presence and making of insurgent public space serves as a barometer of the democratic well-being and inclusiveness of our present society.” (Hou 2012)

Images 33. Street Plans Collaborative instigates public awareness of a pedestrian corridor by staging a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;disruptionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

Images 34. (below) Temporary Park in Chile constructed by the The Enabling City initiative, Javier Vergara Petrescu.

Image 32. TKTKTK instigated a temporary public pool inside of a dumpster. New York.

QUANTIFYING THE PUBLICdocumenting REALM investment As a part of a new urban development tool launched by the City of Minneapolis, in 2014, the Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) department committed to creating a Downtown Public Realm Framework. The City recognized that there is an opportunity for business owners and developers to play a more active role in the public realm, especially at the streetscape level, throughout downtown. In order to encourage further investment, the Public Realm Framework is intended to be a planning process that will result in a framework plan outlining key areas of focus, while promoting recommendations for policy change and possibly incentives for increasing amenity in the public realm. What does this mean? The definition for the public realm was first coined by A. L Strauss in his publication Images of the American City (Strauss 1961). The public realm, according to Strauss, is different from public spaces (in general) in that the setting minimizes the segregation of people based on “lifestyles” (values, opinions, gender, race, ethnicity, age, income). The public realm is where strangers co-mingle with existing acquaintances; it includes urban public spaces like streets, parks, and plazas (Hampton 2010). For the Public Realm Framework plan, the definition of public realm is defined by the geography of the right-of-way (the space between parcel lines), and the immediate adjacencies. Despite the discrepancy in definition, there is significant overlap in use and geography

within Downtown Minneapolis, and likely in most downtown areas in American cities. As a foundation to the stakeholder engagement process, CPED created a database comprised of records of each physical object existing within the public right-of-way and immediate adjacencies, in order to quantify and compare the amounts and types of investment within the public realm of downtown Minneapolis. This database was created by using a geo-referencing online application called Fulcrum. Myself, along with another research assistant, collected over 5,000 data points referencing the locations and qualifications of every bench, wayfinding device, piece of public art, landscaping element, plaza, bike rack, newspaper stand and pedestrian impediment, within the ‘public realm’, for each of the five downtown neighborhoods (North Loop, Downtown East, Downtown West, Elliot Park, and Loring Park). This information has been sorted and aggregated, to create analytic maps of investments and their overlaps with other pieces of public infrastructure (bus routes, green infrastructure, bike lanes, event corridors, etc). The resulting synthesis maps and graphics have heavily influenced the design proposal for this capstone project. Experientially, I can make some conclusions on this research regarding the current level of public investment in Elliot Park, compared to the rest of Downtown. These findings support what most

people who frequent downtown neighborhoods observe already: Elliot Park, in the public realm, is significantly underserved by the private and public sphere, in physical amenity. There are, quantifiably, more and of a higher quality, pieces of public physical amenity in Downtown West and Loring Park than in the other Downtown neighborhoods. Elliot Park has a disproportionate amount of un-maintained stretches of ‘vegetation’ (weeds), less maintained street trees, and more cases of impediment than the other neighborhoods. This evidence is directly correlated to the number of surface parking lots. This is where I began to really examine the relationship between the public right-of-way and the adjacent land uses. The quality of the pedestrian and public realm is not only determined by what exists in the right-of-way. In the case of Elliot Park, the right-of-way appears to stretch beyond the sidewalk into these vacant and underdeveloped parking lots.

Parking lot on Park Ave. between 9th and 10th Streets

STARTING THE CONVERSATION Seeing Oftentimes we hear these words, muttered when passing by a derelict surface parking lot or underdeveloped pocket within an urban area:

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Why isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t anyone doing or building anything here?.â&#x20AC;? Right-of-Way, as a capstone proposal, begins to address the notion of citizens, residents, and designers influencing the urban realm, even it if its on private property. Today, there are approximately 3 parking stalls for every car in America (Ben-Joseph 2012), making surface parking one of the largest land uses in urban areas today. They are not just unsightly, but they increase the speed and volume of surface stormwater runoff, have little to no habitat value, contribute to the urban heat island effect, and are a blight to the pedestrian. The Elliot Park neighborhood of Minneapolis contains over 40 acres of surface parking, making it the largest land use in the neighborhood, over parks, services, residential, and commercial uses.

Opportunity

CONTEXT This is Eliot Park Neighborhoods of Downtown Minneapolis

north loop

downtown west

loring park

downtown east

elliot park

16 0

250 500

Feet 1,000

Flowers growing in parking lot on Chicago Avenue Below, a mural depicting the architectural legacy of the neighborhood, being taken over by spontaenous vegetation, adjacent to an empty surface parking lot in Elliot Park. This image perfectly displays the context of the neighborhood.

Barrier at separating sidewalk from surface lot, Centennial Place

Another barrier separating the drive lane from a surface lot, 3rd Avenue South

LANDMARKS

Rendering of US Bank Stadium (replacing the Metrodome)

Hennepin County Medical Center

St. Augustana Senior Living Facility

Elliot Park, an 8-acre park owned and maintained by MPRB

East 17th Street, also known as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Free Streetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; due to a lack of metered parking, adjacent to I-94.

The Rappahannock building, next to Skyscape Condos

THE HISTORY

of Elliot Park

Elliot Park is one of the oldest neighborhoods in Minneapolis. It was platted during the mid 1850s, just a few years after the founding of the City. Swedish immigrants resided here first, building mansions, and were the initial patrons of the boom of healthcare facilities which opened in Elliot Park. A variety of medical facilities were built here (Augustana, Swedish Hospital, City Hospital—later Hennepin County Medical Center, Asbury Hospital) as a response to the growing number of injured and sick migrant workers who had flocked to the city during its industrial boom. (EPNI 2014) Railroad, mill, and steel workers did not have the social capital of nearby family to help them recover from imminent illness and injury from working in dangerous conditions. Additionally, the migrant workers were comprised mainly of single men, young and old. Many were afflicted with alcohol addiction problems. (Basich 1955-61) The history of Elliot Park is invariably tied to the history of the Gateway area and the old Minneapolis Skid Row, as most of the migrant workers lived in the flophouses along Hennepin and Washington Avenue, during the mid-part of the century. One of the main functions of downtown Minneapolis was to house and care for this population. (Lindberg Consulting 2012) In 1893, Elliot Park, the first downtown park, was constructed, with donated land from Dr. Joseph Elliot. As the population increased throughout

the city (compare the 1880 population of 47,000 to the 1885 population of 129,000), the neighborhood drew residents, as it was the only Downtown neighborhood with its own park. Rising land costs and construction costs during the period between 1900 and 1920 spurred apartment and multi-family housing development in the neighborhood. (EPNI 2014) This all came to an end around the middle of the 20th Century, due to a number of factors. After the Great Depression, most of the workers were “down and out” of work, contributing to an even higher existence of alcohol-induced rowdiness and lewdness around Gateway Park, where many of the under- and un-employed lived. The blight, which ensued due to a lack of investment for this area of town, was exasperated as wealthier residents began moving out to the suburbs. Similarly, the small, religious-based medical institutions in Elliot Park began consolidating and moving to other areas of the city and to the suburbs as well. Urban renewal policies ushered in an era of heavy demolition in the Gateway area, as well as in Elliot Park, as structures were removed due to deferred maintenance. Many plans were made, especially in the Gateway area, to build new buildings, most of which were never realized fully. Photographs of flophouse tenants at the Rex Hotel. John Basich, the proprietor, took photos of all of the tenants during the 1950s and 1960s. site specific documentary

Urban renewal plan for the Gateway District: demolition.

Contagion Building, 1930. Built 1918, demolished around the 1950s.

Cue the personal motor vehicle, gaining in popularity, along with the destruction of the Minneapolis Streetcar (1938). All of these factors have lead to the over-abundance of land vacancies within the urban fabric of Minneapolis, especially in Elliot Park. The construction of Interstates 94 and 35W displaced many residents of the neighborhood, and hindered investment. Between 1950 and 1970, the population of Elliot Park decreased by 54% (EPNI 2014). In the mid-1970s, discussions began to arise regarding the move of the Vikings Stadium to Downtown. This was a hotly-contested issue, which many people opposed. The residents of Elliot Park were opposed to the development, as they saw how the project involved less and less investment in their surrounding neighborhood. Despite protests, the Hubert Humphrey Metrodome opened in downtown Minneapolis in 1982, cementing (pun intended) the demise and compartmentalization of the Elliot Park Neighborhood. (Klobuchar 1982)

Contagion Building site, 2013, at 6th Street between Park and Portland Avenues

During the 1980s and 1990s, community revitalization programs were implemented in Elliot Park, mainly administered through Elliot Park Neighborhood, Inc, the official neighborhood group. During the 1990s, Neighborhood Revitalization funds were dispersed, to further increase urban renewal tactics throughout the country. Minneapolis served as an example to the rest of the country by forcing every neighborhood in the city to create an implementation plan for each neighborhood, from within the neighborhood. (Martin and Pentel, 2002) During this time, a number of buildings in Elliot Park were renovated for low-income and equity housing (Elliot East condominiums and Old-Town-InTown Co-Op, for instance). (EPNI 2014) Today, a new Vikings Stadium is under construction, along with a number of new, high-end residential developments (Ryan Co. Wells Fargo development, Thresher Court, etc..). There are still a few of the older mansions and apartment buildings from the late 19th century (the Rappahannock, the Roselle, etc) in Elliot Park, along with the larger remaining medical facilities (Augustana and Hennepin County Medical Center). A new Gateway Park is being planned, adjacent to the Vikings Stadium to the west. As of this writing, it is unclear what the long-term management and stewardship plan for this park will be, as the programming is tied to Vikings game-day activities for only a few days out of the year.

INDUSTRY SQUARE

ELLIOT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES (TODAY) ELLIOT PARK (FORMERLY ELLIOT FARM)

Aerial Photo of Downton Minneapolis, c. 1938, courtesy of Minnesota Historical Society

The image to the left is an aerial photograph taken in 1938. The orange outline depicts the current boundaries of the Elliot Park neighborhod, with the green showing the Park. Prior to the construction of highways I-94 and I-35W, as well as the Viking Stadium and Hennepin County Medical Center, this neighborhood was not cut off from other parts of the city, and was integrated into the general grid layout. The neighborhood was adjacent to Industry Square, to the north of Elliot Park. Here, the railyards and Mills dominated the landscape. Workers in the industrial area would go to Elliot Park for medical care, either for the treatment of diseases, accidents, or for addiction. To the right is an image of the Augustana Mission College, taken in 1905. This site is now a part of North Central Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s campus. The Augustana Mission College was one of the first training centers for nurses working in the neighborhood. Postcard of Ausustana Mission College, c. 1905. Courtesy of Minnesota Historicall Society.

E, C. 1905

Above is a postcard of the Keeley House, formerly located at the corner of 10th Street and Park Avenue. The mansion, surrounded by tall trees and a shady lawn, was a private medical facility, dedicated to helping people with alcohol addiction. Many of these private apothecary-style houses were prevalent in Elliot Park, as herbalists boasted the healing powers of proprietary â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;tincturesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. This postcard is also telling of the transportation of the time--the directions indicate taking the streetcar a few blocks away.

This is the same corner today, at Park Avenue at 10th Street. The trees, lawn, and mansion are gone. Instead, a large billboard and a poorly-mantained surface parking lot dominate the site. (Left) Potscard courtesy of Minnesota Historical Society.

(Above) Google Streetview image, 2014.

Gateway Park, 1937. Courtesy of the MInnesota Historical Society.

Demolition of the Metropolitan Building, 1961. Courtesy of the Minnesota Hisorical Society.

During the 30s and 40s, the rail and milling industries began to decline in profit and productivity, leaving many men out of work, and forced to occupy public spaces, such as Gateway Park, shown above. The area of Hennepin Avenue and Nicollet Avenue, now where the Downtown Public Library exist today, was known as Skid Row.

building was indicative of the Romanesque style of architecture (thick, sandstone block walls, similar to what is found today at Minneapolisâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; City Hall). The Metropolitan building took 3 years to demolish, and in the end, the property was sold for $32,000 and turned into a surface parking lot.

As a reaction to derelict buildings and high numbers of vagrants, the City embarked on Urban Renewal policies during the 1960s through the 1980s. During this time, many of Minneapolisâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; most treasured buildings were destroyed. The photo to the right, above, shows the demolition of the Metropolitan Building in the early 1960s. This building was wrong-fully deemed a fire hazard by the fire chief, and ordered to be demolished. The

The maps to the right show the growth and migration of surface parking lots in Downtown Minneapolis, as they relate to Elliot Park. The map on the left shows, in orange, the boundaries of surface parking lots before 1945. To the left shows the number which exist in 2014, clearly showing how surface parking dominates the landscape in th neighobrhood, more so than any other neigbhorhood in Downtown.

SURFACE PARKING LOTS, 1945

SURFACE PARKING LOTS, 2014

“The presence of these institutions ultimately formed the Elliot Park ethos. The neighborhood became a place where communities of people came together, through faith organizations and government support, to care for their fellow neighbors in an unusually concentrated way. Though the original organizations have morphed over time, the same tradition of caring exists today.” Quote from “Elliot Park: A Neighborhood Caring fo Its Community”, report.

Volunteers building a structure for one of the Mission projects, c. 1920. Courtesy of Minnesota HIstorical Society.

MEDICAL AND HEALTH FACILITIES, PRE-1970

MEDICAL AND HEALTH FACILITIES, 2014

ELLIOT PARK

today

Today, the Elliot Park neighborhood stands out from other neighborhoods in Minneapolis for a number of demographic reasons. First, the neighborhood housing stock is made of nearly all rental units. Throughout Minneapolis, the ratio of renter-occupied to owner-occupied housing units is 1:2. In Elliot Park, over 80% of units are renter occupied. Secondly, the population in Elliot Park is significantly older than that of other areas in the city. This is due to the clustering of a number of senior living and assisted living facilities. Thirdly, the population in Elliot Park has a significantly lower average income than the surrounding neighborhoods. There are over 1000 units of Section 8 or low-income housing within Elliot Park, most of which are owned and managed by Aeon, a non-profit developer. This has created a unique situation with the older housing stock as well. Despite the proximity to downtown, the housing stock within Elliot Park has maintained affordability and has been resistant to gentrification because of Aeon-owned units. Generally, shifts in neighborhood land use are catalyzed through changes in ownership. However, for better or worse, the ownership structure in Elliot Park is not changing. Simultaneously, the population is not fairly positioned to buy out parking lot land owners on their own. This has created an environment of stagnancy with the number of surface parking lots in Elliot Park.

61-80% of housing units are renter-occupied

41-80% of housing units are renter-occupied

The Heitage, an Aeon low-income rental property

81-100% of housing units are renter-occupied

60% residents are over 65 (benedictine health center) seniors in elliot park

St. Augustana Health Care Center in Elliot Park

40% residents are over 65

per capita income is less than $30,000/year

80% residents are over 65 (augustana senior living)

per capita income is less than $15,000/year low income families in elliot park

John Clawson, Executive Director of House of Charity, centered in Elliot Park.

During a steering committee meeting for the Downtown Public Realm Framework in 2014, participants were asked to identify formal and informal ‘districts’ throughout Downtown, and give them names. This was an attempt to identify areas of opportunity throughout Downtown, and also to identify areas of concentration of pedestrians, and active street life. Inadvertently, the results showed areas that are also unidentifiable to even those who are ‘experts’ and long-time residents of Downtown Minneapolis. Areas that are identified are characterized by the presence of retail, entertanment destinations, government and social services, or natural features. Generally, areas that are unidentified as districts are areas that have a large number of surface parking lots existing. The correlation between a lack of investment and a lack of identity is strong with the presence of surface parking lots.

“Through the years Elliot Park Neighborhood has persisted despite social and economic changes, fluctuating fortunes and suburban emigration. It is a strongly built community that has maintained a stock of historic buildings along with a stock of determined people. It has survived, even when it has not thrived, and it boasts a proud heritage that is bursting with potential and promise. Residents and employees, representing a diverse mix of cultures and economies, live and work in harmony in this urban village nestled next to downtown Minneapolis.” Elliot Park Neighborhood, Inc., 2014

WHAT ARE THESE AREAS KNOWN FOR?

TARGET FIELD STATION

RK AL OOD

M VE TR RF EE AIN RO T NT DIS TR

RIV

ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT

TH EA TH TR EA A E TR RT T DI E /T HE ST D HE A RI IS A TR C TR T E T IC RE D T D IST IS R T I TH RIC CT EA TT TR HE E/ AT EN R TE E D R IS TA T IN RIC M T EN T

STADIUM DISTRICT TARGET TOWN

ICT

RIVERFRONT CORRIDOR

IST

RIC

HISTORIC MILL DISTRICT

BUSINESS DISTRICT

VE DIS RNM TR EN ICT T

TA IL

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

GOVERNMENT DISTRICT

MILL CITY/ GUTHRIE ARTS/CULTURE GUTHRIE

STADIUM DISTRICT

DIN

ING

/RE

STADIUM DISTRICT

HCMC DISTRICT CONVENTION CENTER CONVENTION CENTER CONVENTION CENTER DESIGNATED ACTIVITY CENTER

ELLIOT PARK ELLIOT PARK

CEDAR/RIVERSID WEST BANK

ELLIOT PARK HISTORIC FABRIC

DISTRICT IDENTITY 33 SOUTH

In an attempt to understand the market forces that were keeping the land in Elliot Park tied up as surface parking lots, the City of Minneapolis commissioned a 2013 study, known as the 2013 Parking Lot Study, by HR&A. This study showed that most of the parking lots are ‘legacy’ lots, in that they are owned by private individuals, and ownership has rarely changed hands outside of families. Most owners are keeping these lots because of the low overhead involved in keeping up a steady stream of income through either feebased or contract parking. In this way, the parcels have a high perceived value, because they bring a steady income for the owners. Because of the general lack of neigbhorhood amenities, such as retail and entertainment, the land is not so highly valued by a prospective developer, despite the location and proximity to Downtown, public transportation, the River, etc. On average, there is a 5.2 million dollar gap in perceived value between perspective developers and current land owners per parcel. For planners and those seeking change within the confines of the market, this means either 2 things: lower the perceived value of the lots to owners, or raise the perceived value of the lots for developers.

“Perceived challenges to redevelopment include: HCMC and other public buildings detract from area walkability, uninterrupted blocks of parking separate Elliot Park from the CBD,lack of skyway connection, and

a near absence of established neighborhood amenities, including streetscape, retail, open space, etc...” HR&A PARKING LOT STUDY, 2013

LAND VALUE TO OWNER: $7.0 MILLION LAND VALUE TO A DEVELOPER: $1.8 MILLION $5.2 MILLION (GAP IN VALUE)

Despite the abundance of surface parking lots, there is a lot of development happening at the edges of Elliot Park. Since the 2010 Census, there have been four significant residential housing developments in Elliot Park: Grant Park, Skyscape, Sexton, and the Lennox. All four of these developments have brought a new demographic to Elliot Park. High-rise condo and condo-style developments are welcomed by the neighborhood association, as they are a sign of prosperity as people with higher incomes are choosing to live in the neighborhood.

The Elliot Park neighborhood is on the edge of change, idealistically and physically. How can residents and interested people use this momentum to spur activity within the heart of the neighborhood? How can new forms of investment and stewardship create amenities that address existing assets and needs?

Rendering of Downtown East Commons

Other new developments on the fringe of the neighborhood include US Bank Stadium, which is replacing the Metrodome, where the Minnesota Vikings play, along with the Wells Fargo hotel and residential deveopment. Concurrently, a new park is being designed, Downtown East Commons, which will be a public/private venture. The diagram to the right maps the locations of recent, current, and proposed development and their locations as they relate to Elliot Park.

Portland Towers

Construction of US Bank STadium

HCMC Ambulatory Clinic

Sexton Lofts

GOALS

to be addressed

vegetation + permeability

neighborhood amenities

!! !

!! !!! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

! !

! !! !

!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

250 500

Feet 1,000

seating

restaurants

pedestrian experience

arts and events in the public realm

! ! !

!! ! !

! !

!! !! !

! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! !

! !

!!!

! !

! !!!

! !!

! !

! !! !!

! !

!! !

! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! !! !!! !

!! !! !

! !

! !!! ! !

! ! !

canopy cover

lrt stations

bus routes in elliot park

250 500

Feet 1,000

public art

entertainment destinations ! ! ! !

A growing demand for parks Another goal to be addressed through the Right-ofWay proposal is the growning demand for parks. Today, there are just over 8 acres of park land in Elliot Park (compared to 42,5 acres of parking lot).

1.21 acres/1000 residents

The 2012 Downtown East/North Loop Master Plan encourages the development of 2.75 acres/1000 residents, which appears to be a benchmark used by other cities around the world as a high standard of park-to-resident ratio. In order to meet this standard today, Elliot Park would need to convert 10 additional acres to park land. The 20-year population projection for Elliot Park is 11,000 residents, which is nearly double the existing population. This would translate, to meet the 2.75/1000 resident benchmark, to 30.25 acres of park land.

parking lots (42.5 acres) (existing)

Playground at the existing Elliot Park.

parks (8.01 acres)

2.75 acres/1000 residents

population: 6,646

parking lots (32.24 acres)

parks (18.27 acres)

standard set by DT East/North Loop Master Plan

population: 11,000

parking lots (11.98 acres)

parks (30.25 acres)

demand for parks, 20-year projection

PROPOSAL What if there was a way to change the ratio of parks to parking lots in Elliot Park, today? Right-Of-Way is a concept to create a mechanism for supporting small changes within the landscape, empowering people who may not own these lots, and challenging the notion of the typical plandeveloper-change cycle, which generally results in ubiquitous developments, lacking in authenticity. The following proposal will address funding, design, partnerships, and the enactment of tactics and strategies to instigate change. As of 2014, developers working in the City of Minneapolis are required to pay a Park Dedication Fee, which funnels money or land aquisitions into new and existing parks. For every new residential unit built, developers are charged $1,500, or required to donate land to the Park Board. This money is used to improve or develop new parks within a half-mile radius of the development site. Calculating recent and proposed development over the last year, there has been a potential to capture over 1.5 million dollars in Park Dedication fees within a half mile of the Elliot Park neighborhood. These diagrams show the potential for both gathering funding for new parks, as well as the potential for using both large and small parking lot parcels within Elliot Park.

half mile radius

new or existing development

<0.6 acres

parking lots <0.6 acres

parking lots >0.6 acres

43 parking lots >0.6 acres

RESIDENTS-IN-RESIDENCE What if there was a way to fund people, who could implement improvements and developments of parks? Right-of-Way proposes to employ residents within the Office of Change (next page). Here is a look at some of the target residents who may be able to provide insight, expertise, and experience to creating change in the neighborhood.

TEENS MN Adult and Teen Challenge has a residential campus within Elliot Park. Teens spend up to one year in residence in the neighborhood working with addiction recovery. Mill City High is a Classical Education charter school, set to open in the fall of 2015, in the former First Covenant Church building. Students will be strongly encouraged to take public transportation, and will be provided with Metro Transit passes. While there is not a high population of teen residents in Elliot Park, there are many teens who travel to, or live temporarily in, the neighborhood.

NCU STUDENTS North Central University is a 4-year undergraduate university specializing in religious and ministry studies, with approximately 1,100 current students. The majority of the student body lives on or near the 12.5-acre campus. Most students are from the midwest, and few own a personal vehicle.

NEW IMMIGRANTS Over 20% of Elliot Park residents are foreign-born (twice the percentage for the rest of the city), many of which emigrated from African countries and live in the newer East Village apartments. This part of the city is also home to the highest concentration of adults who report having absolutely no formal education.

RENTERS At over 85%, Elliot Park has one of the highest renter populations in the City (compare with a city-wide neighborhood average of 50%). Over 1000 rental units within the neighborhood are dedicated for low-income housing. Due to higher turnover in rental units, renters are often under-represented in the planning process.

SENIORS + PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES With multiple senior living residential complexes, (St. Augustana, Benedictine Health Center, Elliot Care Home, Andrew Residence), Elliot Park has more elderly residents than other parts of Minneapolis. There is a higher neighborhood population 17.2% compared to 10.2% for the rest of the city) of disabled residents as well.

DESIGNERS + ARTISTS Landscape architects, architects, designers, builders, carpenters, and artists are needed to provide professional services for the Official Office of Change. Many of these roles will need to be filled by people who may not currently live in the neighborhood. Recently, the neighborhood was described as an â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;artist desertâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. However, the demographics are changing with increased development and transit connecting Elliot Park to the University and other parts of the Twin Cities.

OFFICE OF CHANGE The Official Office of Change is a mechanism to support small changes within the neighborhood. The Residents-in-Residence staff would work out of this building, which is currently three vacant retail spaces along 10th Street, near Chicago Avenue. The exterior of the building has been specifically designed to invoke ideas of change, construction, temporality, and vibrancy. The language of scaffolding, when used in an artful way, is indicative of the low-key,, utilitarian, and humble material palette that might be implemented in projects throughout the Elliot Park neighborhood, as run through the Official Office of Change. This place should be a recognizable fixture in the neighborhood. If people have ideas of events or ways to create change, it should be obvious that this is the first place to go. The Residents will serve as liasons to the City of Minneapolis, Public Works, artists, designers, and construction professionals. This will also be a place to stage materials, borrow tools from a toolbank, or host workshops. The idea of tactical urbanism is to create smallscale, temporary change, as a way to experiment. In order for these street-level experiments (or tactical implements) to hold water for future development, there needs to be documentation and synthesis. This is also a main function of the Official Office of Change--to be keepers of the street experiments.

“[A tactic] takes advantage of “opportunities” and depends on them, being without any base where it could stockpile its winnings, build up its own position and plan raids. What it wins it cannot keep. This nowhere gives a tactic mobility, to be sure, but a mobility that must accept the chance offerings of the moment, and seize on the wing of the possibilities that offer themselvs at any given moment. It must vigilantly make use of the cracks that particular conjunctions open in the surveilance of the proprietary powers. It poaches them. It creates surprises in them. It can be where it is least expected. It is a guileful ruse.” Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life

light

identify

she

elter

gather

modify

partner

share cut

MASTER PLAN

MARKET

The Right-of-Way proposal looked at a number of vacant and underutilized lots in Elliot Park as case studies for implementing new parks through the efforts of the Office of Change. The choice of these lots, along wth the corresponding programs, were informed directly through the Elliot Park Master Plan.

GROW PARK

FOOD PARK

SHELTER PARK

ART PARK

OFFICIAL OFFICE OF CHANGE

RE E

ET QU

LM ING

FIC

T NS TR EE :GR 11 T ING

ING

AV E

HS TR

HA VE

“CREATE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG I-35W CHICAGO AVENUE AND 11TH AVENUE, WHICH ENCOURAGE ‘GREEN STREET’ CONNECTIONS TO LRT STATION AT 5TH STREET AND THE RIVERFRONT” 13

11 T

ICA

HS TR

AV ES

PO R

AV ES

DA VE

PA R

HA VE

KA VE

PA R

ND RT LA

HA VE S 5T

FI C

AV E

TR AF

S 4T HA VE

AV E 3R D

CH ICA GO

2N D

LM ING

AV E

AV EG

MA R

“PROMOTE 2-WAY TRAFFIC FOR BOTH 9TH AND 10TH STREETS EAST OF 5TH AVENUE”

15TH ST E

10TH AVE S

ELLIOT AVE S

14TH ST E

15TH ST E

16TH ST E

“CREATE NEW PUBLIC SQUARE, URBAN PLAZA, GATHERING SPACE IWTHIN THE CENTRAL CORE DISTRICT”

17TH ST E

I-94

“PROMOTE ‘RIGHT-SIZING’ OF ONE-WAY PAIR CONNECTOR STREETS, WITH A FOCUS ON PARK AND PORTLAND, 7TH AND 8TH STREETS”

!! !

FOOD PARK

!! !!! ! ! ! !

! !! !

! !

Through a partnership between neighboring business owners and the owner of this parking lot, an otherwise typical surface lot can be transformed into a ngiht food market through tactical lighting, a structure of conventional scaffolding, and a reflective asphalt coating. This lot can be used to store vehicles during the day, while hosting a variety of music and food-related programming at night, something that is in demand in this dynamic neighborhood. A variety of seating options also adds to the vibrancy of this proposal.

! !!

! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! !! !

! !

!! ! ! !! !!!! ! !! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! !! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !! ! !! !! ! !!

!! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! !

! !! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

!! ! !

! !

!! ! !! !!

! ! ! !

!!!

! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! ! !

! !!

! ! !! !

!!!

! !

! ! ! !!

!!! !

! !

0â&#x20AC;&#x2122;

parking lot owner

se rv i

s ce

idea: nightly food truck fair

Feet 1,000

permitting: check min. distances from existing restaurants partnership: MN Food Truck Association

official

office

250 500

seque coffee owner

seating

restaurants

change

change the parking schedule to daily contract/fee, no parking after 5pm

finneganâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s owner

site design + shelter design + furniture design

paint to cut asphalt wayfinding identify at edges strategy truck & pe-for restrooms/ for destrian planting cafe areas construction

seed/ plant

asse

emble

10 T

HS TR

SURFACE COAT: WALKWAY

PLANTING BED: CUT FOOD TRUCK STALLS MOBILE BENCHES

THE BALMORAL

PO RT LA ND

AV E

OVERHEAD STRUCTURE

FINNEGAN’S SEGUE COFFEE

eating parking

in the future

HINKLE-MURPHY HOUSE brick + mortar restaurant

eating

EXISTING

SEGUE COFFEE 5% SOLAR REFLECTANCE

DAY TYP. ASPHALT: 95% HEAT GAIN

VACANT

NIGHT

PROPOSED

30-55% SOLAR REFLECTANCE

DAY

MODULAR SCAFFOLDING STRUCTURE

REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT ASPHALT COATING: 45-70% HEAT GAIN

EXTENDED HOURS

NIGHT

FALL PANICUM Panicum dichotomiflorum

SOIL AMENDED

SINGLE PIPE SCAFFOLDING WITH SWIVEL CLAMP CONNECTORS

MOBILE FOOD COURT

ACTIVATION THROUGH LIGHT

CONNECTIONS

REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT SURFACE COAT

ART PARK

! !

This surface parking lot in Elliot Park is currenty serving as an informal path for residents, as they cut across the corner heading to and from the closest transit station. Why not transform this experience into one tha involves playful interactions? Simple gabion strucures, alongw ith a cut-and-seed strategy transform the empty parking lot into a place for expression and observation.

! ! !

!! ! !

! !

!! !! !

! !

! ! !

! !

!!!

! !

!!!

! !!

! !

! !! !!

! !

! ! !

! ! !! !

! !

! !!

! ! ! !! !! ! !

!! !! !

! !

! !!! ! !

! ! !

Feet 1,000

public art

idea: introduce art into the neighborhood office

change

idea: improve pedestrian experience

entertainment destinations ! ! !

site design official

resident

partnership: Film Society of Minneapolis & St. Paul

event permitting

local artist

250 500

solicit artists to create/display work in proposed art park

paint pedestrian paths work with parking lot owner to designate appropriate number of parking spaces to dedicate to art park

cut asphalt at edges for planting

seed/ plant

construction

/ t

SKYSCAPE CONDOS

HISTORIC BROWNSTONES

EXISTING BILLBOARD GABION ART WALLS GABION BENCHES SURFACE COAT: WALKWAY

KA VE

PLANTING BED: CUT

PA R

PLANTING TRENCH: CUT 10 T

HS TR

parking (partial lot)

(art)

pedestrian walk assemble/ construct

outdoor movie night

in the future

or neighborhood theater

neighborhood park

studio live/work development

REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT SURFACE COAT

RED FESCUE Festuca rubra

CANADA BLUEGRASS Poa compressa

GABION ART WALL

ART PARK

MODIFYING SURFACES

11. SIT & ENJOY

9. CLOSE BASKETS AND TIE WITH WIRE 8. SET ROW OF DIMENSIONAL LUMBER ABOVE ASPHALT FILL

10. SET FINISH CEDAR ABOVE BASKET, FASTEN WITH GALVANIZED SCREWS 7. SETTLE ASPHALT FILL, LEAVING 1.5” GAP BELOW TOP OF GABION BASKET

6. FILL TO TOP WITH ASPHALT 5. SET ROW OF GABION BASKETS

GABION BENCH

2. EXCAVATE PAST AGGREGATE BASE, APPROX. 9” BELOW THE SURFACE

3. FILL WITH 3” AGGREGATE BASE

1. CUT ASPHALT

4. FILL WITH 4” SETTING SAND

GABION WALL

BUILDING ON SITE

EXISTING STRUCTURE

MOVIE NIGHT SETTING A NEW SCENE

SHELTER PARK This transformed parkng lot in Elliot Park shows how structural and vegetated canopy cover is a key element in creating an active space. Wi-fi hotspots have been installed all over the city; why not make these places enjoyable for working, waiting, and traversing?

canopy cover

partnership: Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging

ideas: create a new way to work, outside, create a new transit stop in the neighborhood

official

office

site + shelter design student

bus routes in elliot park

partnership: Metro Transit

downtown employee

resident

lrt stations

change

partnership: Hennepin County Libraries modify routes to connect with LRT station

partnership: City of Minneapolis

identify pedestrian paths

cut a

t asphalt at edges for planting

FREE “LITTLE” LIBRARY

PA RK

AV E

PIONEER SPECIES PLANT BEDS: CUT

BUS SHELTER + WI-FI WORKSTATION

SURFACE COAT: WALKWAY

10 T

HS TR

transit stop

work station +

install seed/ assemble/ plant construct Minneapolis bus shelter Wi-Fi Hotspot

M T W T F S S

in the future

light rail station

library

construction library

or employment center

WI-FI HOTSPOT

RED FESCUE Festuca rubra

PUBLIC TRANSIT

WAITING, MOVING, STAYING, WORKING

REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT SURFACE COAT GABION BENCH

BARE ROOT SAPLINGS

CUT BEDS

6-8” MULCH COMPOST

6’X3’X18’ PLANTING VOLUME

INITIAL PLANTING

LOAMY MIX: 65% SAND 20% COMPOST 15% CLAY SILT

MATURE STANDS

PLANTING STRATEGY

COMPETITIVE STAND ESTABLISHMENT

HAMMOCK RENTAL

LAZY SATURDAYS URBAN RETREAT

EXISTING STRUCTURE

FREE LIBRARY

GROW PARK Grow Park is a proposal to turn a contract parking lt into a community agriculture hub. Here, people such as neighborhood residents, urban farmers, or HCMC employees, could rent a parking space and, with the help of the Office of Change, turn the stall into a garden plot. Raised beds, cutting and growing into the ground, hugel beds, or vertical farming are all viable options on this site. The Office of Change can assist growers with choosing plant species that are already growing in the neighborhood, that have medicinal or herbal qualities.

COMMON CHICKWEED Stellaria media

CHICORY Cichorium intybus

COMMON ST. JOHNSWORT Hypericum perforatum

COMMON MILKWEED Asclepsias syriaca

OXEYE DAISY Leucanthemum vulgare

COMMON PURSLANE Portulaca oleracea

Along Centennial Way, which is a small throughstreet mainly used for parking, a pop-up farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; market could take place on a regular basis. The structure for this could be similar to the Food Park: a simple, yet artful, scaffolding structure. Centennial Way connects the Official Office of Change site to the farm and to HCMC beyond. This proposal links the site to the neighborhoodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s history of both agriculture and health and medicine, and is another example of how an urban park can function on a dynamic level in the future.

COMMON TANSY Tanacetum vulgare

CANADA GOLDENROD PROSTRATE KNAPWEED Solidago canadensis Portulaca oleracea

HCMC POLLINATOR BUFFER STRIPS ORCHARD

LW AY

COMMUNITY GARDEN PLOTS

NIA

BENCHES

COMMUNITY COMPOST SURFACE COAT: WALKWAY COVERED MARKET STRUCTURE

10 T

THE OFFICIAL OFFICE OF CHANGE

HS TR

urban farmer

HCMC employees

work with Public Works and neighboring residences to provide sources for irrigation

ideas: create a place for community gardening and bring vegetation to the neighborhood

permitting for market space collect and maintain seed bank

official

office

change

partnership: Urban Ventures/CityKid Enterprises

site design residents ORCHARD

negotiate with lot owner to modify parking stalls VERTICAL FARMING HUGEL BED RAISED BED

CUT BED

identify pedestrian paths

cut asphalt for planting

seed/ plant

assemble/ construct raised beds

construction

parking (partial lot)

in the future

urban farm park

SHADE STRUCTURE

POLLINATOR BUFFER

REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT SURFACE COAT

COMMUNITY COMPOST

GARDEN VARIETY

COMMUNITY URBAN AGRICULTURE

PV PANEL + SCAFFOLDING TEMPORARY STRUCTURE

POLLINATOR + SOIL STABILIZATION MIX

PIONEER SPECIES

MARKET DAY

NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH INITIATIVE

CONCLUSIONS Right-of-Way is a proposal that goes beyond simply adding new park land to a neighborhood that is on the brink of change. Right-of-Way questions also how we typically view and use parks. These are spaces that are not just designed for passive or active recreation, but these are places for eating, creating, working, studying, producing. Recently, at a lecture in the Downtown public library, an alumni of JXTAposition Arts (NE Minneapolis) was asked what her definition of a park was. She replied that her definition was any space, outside, where she wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t get hassled. As a broad definition of the space, I would like to adopt these words, and augment them with the images and ideas of what these spaces could mean for an urbanite. This proposal also questions and challenges the typical roles that professionals play in our designed world. Does a landscape architect need to design a public space? Or, if the tools and mechanisms were in place, like the Official Office of Change, could the ideas that are presented in a master plan be brought to implementation by the people who will eventually be the end users?

parking lots

parks

could this be the future of parks?

THANK YOU

REBECCA KRINKE JOE FAVOUR JAMES WHEELER JOHN COMMAZZI COAL DORIUS BETH ELLIOT LYNN REGNIER LACY SHELBY KJERSTI MONSON RATTANA SENGSOULICHANH SAM CARLSEN JON KALLIN JODI REFLSLAND A.J. EVERT NATE GANDRUD LAURA MUSACCHIO MATTHEW TUCKER JOSEPH NOWAK NICOLE PONATH SEAN HIGGINS JOE MOLLEN KRISTINE MILLER CARRIE CHRISTENSEN JOHN KOEPKE

REFERENCES Advisors, HR&A. Minneapolis East Downtown Parking Lot Study. Memorandum, Minneapolis: Corridors of Opportunity, 2013. Ammon, Beyerle and Michelle Emma James. “Exploring Small Interactions in the Landscape to Generate Urban Change.” Landscape Architecture Australia, 2013: 24-25. Arefi, Mahyar. Deconstructing Placemaking: Needs, Opportunities, and Assets. New York: Routledge, 2014. Arpa, Javier and Aurora Fernandez Per. Strategy and Tactics in Public Space. Vitoria-Gsateiz, Spain: a + t architecture publishers, 2008. Down on Skid Row. Directed by John Bacich. Performed by John Bacich. 19551961. Banzhaf, Spencer and Randall P. Walsh. “Segregation and Tiebout sorting: The link between place-based investments and neighborhood tipping.” Journal of Urban Economics, 2013: 83-98. Batty, Michael. The New Science of Cities. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2013. Ben-Joseph, Eran. Re-Thinking A Lot: The Design and Culture of Parking. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012. Board, Star Tribune Editorial. “Minneapolis Downtown 2025 Plan is off to a good start.” Star Tribune. November 3, 2014. www.startribune.com/opinion/ editorials/281380231.html (accessed November 10, 2014). Brosa, Brian. “BEST/SITE.” WHOADU.DE. January 22, 2009. http://whoadu. de/?tag=ghost-parking-lot (accessed September 17, 2014).

Brueckner, Jan and Stuart Rosenthal. “Gentrification and Neighborhood Housing Cycles: Will America’s Future Downtowns be Rich?” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2009: 725-743. Brugmans, George and Jolanda Strien. IABR-2014: Urban By Nature. Rotterdam: International Architecture Bienniale Rotterdam, 2014. Chao, Julie. “Berkeley Lab researchers showcase cool pavement technologies.” Heat Island Group. September 13, 2012. heatisland.lbl.gov/news/berkeley-labresearchers-showcase-cool-pavement-technologies (accessed November 12, 2014).

Karen Raney, 88-97. London: The National Association for Gallery Education, 2013. Daskalakis, Georgia, Charles Walkheim, and Jason Young (Ed.). Stalking Detroit. Barcelona: ACTAR, 2001. Development, Community Planning and Economic. The Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth. Adopted Plan, Minneapolis: City of Minneapolis, 2009.

Charlesworth, Esther. City Edge: Case Studies in Contemporary Urbansim. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Ltd. , 2005.

Dooling, Sarah. “Ecological Gentrification: A Research Agenda Exploring Justice in the City.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2009: 621639. Elizabeth Burton, Lynn Mitchell. Inclusive Urban Design: Streets for Life. Oxford: Elsevier, 2006.

Cindio, Alessandro Aurigi and Fiorella De. Augmented Urban Spaces. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2008.

Emporis. Building Directory. 2014. http://www.emporis.com/city/minneapolismn-usa (accessed October 20, 2014).

Clay, Grady. “Ephemeral Places: Here today, gone tomorrow.” Design Quarterly, 1989: 1-35.

EPNI. Elliot Park Neighborhood, Inc. 2014. http://elliotparkneighborhood.org/ (accessed September 20, 2014).

Collins, Pat. Global Restoration Network. May 23, 2007. (accessed September 20, 2014).

Fainstein, Susan. The Just City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2010.

Corbin, Carla I. “Vacancy and the Landscape: Cultural Context and Design Response.” Landscape Journal, 2003: 12-24. Corner, James. Recovering Landscape: Essays in Contemporary Landscape Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999. Courage, Cara. “The Global Phenomenon of Tactical Urbanism as an Indicator of New Forms of Citizenship.” In engage 32: Citizenship and Belonging, by Ed.

Forsyth, Ann and Laura R. Musacchio. Designing Small Parks: A Manual for Addressing Social and Ecological Concerns. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005. Frykman, Birgitta Skarin. “The Urban Context: Ethnicity, Social Relations and Situational Analysis.” Journal of the Royal Anthopoligcal Institute, 1997: 422. Gehl, Jan and Birgitte Svarre. How to study public life. Copenhagen: Island Press, 2013.

Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1987. Gibson, David. The Wayfinding Handbook. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2009. Gieryn, Thomas F. “A Space for Place in Sociology.” Annual review of Sociology, 2000: 463-96. Gilyard, Burl. “Minneapolis plagued by ‘zombie buildings’.” Finance & Commerce. November 30, 2010. http://finance-commerce.com/2010/11/introducing-the%E2%80%98zombie-building/ (accessed October 20, 2014). Goetz. “Desegregation Lawsuits and Public Housing Dispersal: The Case of Hollman v. Cisneros in Minneapolis.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 2007: 282-299. Goetz, Edward G. and Mara S. Sidney. “Local policy subsystems and issue definition: an analysis of community development policy change.” Urban Affairs Review, 1997: 490. Goetz, Edward G. “The Politics of Poverty Deconcentration and Housing Demolition.” Journal of Urban Affairs, 2000: 157-173. Green, Jared. “How to Combat Gentrification.” The DIRT: Uniting the Built and Natural Environments, ASLA. October 1, 2014. http://dirt.asla. org/2014/10/01/how-to-combat-gentrification/ (accessed October 10, 2014). Groth, Paul and Todd W. Bressi. Understanding Ordinary Landscapes. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. Group, IBI. Downtown East/North Loop Master Plan. Adopted Plan, Minneapolis:

City of Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development, 2003. Harris, Marlys. “For now, Vikings stadium will be surrounded by...parking lots.” MinnPost. March 20, 2013. http://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2013/03/ now-new-vikings-stadium-will-be-surrounded-parking-lots (accessed October 16, 2014). Hentila, Helka-Liisa. “Central Micro-Peripheries: Temporary uses of Central Residual Spaces as Urban Development Catalysts.” Jyvaskyla, 2003: 1-20. Hickey, Dave. Pirates and Farmers. London: Ridinghouse, 2013. Hou, Jeffrey. Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities. New York: Routledge, 2010. Hurst, Needham B. and Sarah E. West. “Public transit and urban redevelopment: The effect of light rail transit on land use in Minneapolis, Minnesota.” Regional Science and Urban Economics, 2014: 57-72. Hyra, Derek. “Conceptualizing the New Urban Renewal: Comparing the Past to the Present.” Urban Affairs Review, 2012: 498-527. Jaffe, Eric. “Co.Design.” FastCoDesign. October 15, 2014. http://www. fastcodesign.com/3037135/evidence/how-parks-gentrify-neighborhoods-andhow-to-stop-it (accessed October 1, 2014). Jakle, John and David Wilson. Derelict Landscapes. Savage, MD: Roman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1992. James, William. Pragmatism and Other Essays. New York: Washington Square Press, Inc. , 1963.

16, 2014. http://www.journalmpls.com/news-feed/elliot-park-deniestailgating-expansion (accessed October 14, 2014). Jones, Phil and James Evans. “Rescue Geography: Place Making, Affect and Regeneration.” Urban Studies, 2012: 2315-2330. Klobuchar, Amy. Uncovering the Dome. Minneapolis: Bolger Publications, Inc. , 1982. Lehtovuori, Panu. Experience and Conflict: The Production of Urban Space. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2010. Lindberg Consulting. Elliot Park: A Neighborhood Caring for Its Community. Historical, Minneapolis: City of Minneapolis, Elliot Park Neighborhood, Inc. , 2012. Lydon, Mike (Ed.). Tactical Urbanism Vol. 1: Short Term Action, Long Term Change. Brooklyn: The Street Plans Collaborative, 2009. Lynch, Kevin and Gary Hack. Site Planning. Maple-Vail, Inc. , 1984. Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1960. Martin, Judith A. and Paula R. Pentel. “What the Neighbors Want: The Neighborhood Revitalization Program’s First Decade.” APA Journal, 2002: 435449. McCann. “Framing Space and Time in the City: Urban Policy and the Politics of Spatial and Temporal Scale.” Journal of Urban Affairs, 2003: 159-178.

Johnson, Ben. “Elliot Park denies tailgating expansion.” The Journal. September

McKinnish, Terra, Randal Walsh, and T. Kirk White. “Who gentrifies low-income neighborhoods?” Journal of Urban Economics, 2010: 180-193. Meinig, D.W. (Ed.). The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. NDSM. NDSM: Self Made City. 2014. (accessed September 20, 2014). Nelson, Tim. “Yet another grand plan for the Vikings stadium district in Minneapolis.” Stadium Watch, MPR News. February 6, 2014. http://blogs. mprnews.org/stadium-watch/2014/02/06/yet-another-grand-plan-for-thevikings-stadium-district-in-minneapolis/ (accessed November 12, 2014). Nishat Awan, Jeremy Till Schneider. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. New York: Routledge, 2011. Oswalt, Philipp, Kaus Overmeyer, Philipp Misselwitz. Urban Catalyst: The Power of Temporary Use. Berlin: DOM Publishers, 2008. Pearsall, Hamil. “Superfund Me: A Study of Resistance to Gentrification in New York City.” Urban Studies, 2013: 2393-2310. Pearson, Clifford. Conceptions of the Desirable: What Cities Ought to Know About the Future. Graz: Springer-Verlag/Wien, 2007. Podagrosi, Angelo. “The diversity of gentrification in Houston’s urban renaissance: from cleansing the urban poor to supergentrification.” Environment and Planning, 2011: 1910-1929. Rosa, Marcos L. and Ute Weiland (Ed.). Handmade Urbanism: From Community Initiatives to Participatory Models. Jovis, 2013.

Rosheim, David. The Other Minneapolis or The Rise and Fall of the Gateway, the Old Minneapolis Skid Row. Maquoketa, IA: The Andromeda Press, 1978.

Whyte, William H. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1980.

Schuetz, Jenny. “Do art galleries stimulate redevelopment?” Journal of Urban Economics, 2014: 59-72.

Willis, Carol and Rosalie Genevro (Ed.). Vacant Lots. New York: The Architectural League of New York, 1989. Wolch, Jennifer, Jason Byrne and Josh Newell. “Urban Space, Public Health, and Environmental Justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 2014: 234-244.

Minnesota Historical Society. Gateway District. December 23, 2011. http:// www.placeography.org/index.php/Gateway_District,_Minneapolis,_Minnesota (accessed October 20, 2014). Stadtentwicklung, Senatsverwaltung fur. Urban Pioneers: Temporary Use and Urban Development in Berlin. Berlin: Jovis, 2007. Strauss, Anselm L. Images of the American City. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.

Woltman, Nick. “New Vikings stadium--and new development--looms over tailgating fans.” TwinCities.com Local News. September 21, 2013. http:// www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_24147121/new-vikings-stadium-and-newdevelopment-looms-over (accessed October 14, 2014). Yves Schoonjars, Krsis Scheerlink, Jeroen Nys, and Farran Massip. Creative Adjacencies. Ghent: Research-Department of Architecture, KULeuven, 2014.

Svarre, Jan Gehl and Birgitte. How to Study Public Life. Washington, D.C.: IslandPress, 2013. Tham, Cecilia. Hackable Cities: A toolkit for Re-Imagining Your Neighborhood. New York: Parsons The New School for Design, 2014. Wakeman, Rosemary. “Reevaluating Postwar Urban Renewal.” Journal of Urban History, 2014: 401-406. Wasacz, Walter. “13 ideas for your city from the first-ever Urban Innovation Exchange.” 83degrees. October 7, 2014. http://www.83degreesmedia.com/ features/UIX100314.aspx (accessed October 10, 2014). Weber, Rachel N. and Janet L. Smith. “Assets and neighborhoods: The role of individual assets in neighborhood revitalization.” Housing Policy Debate, 2010: 169-202.