thoughts on the potential for mixed use projects that I discussed at the last
Park Board meeting.
First let's clear up a few things. The Park Board does not have any funds
available for affordable housing and I am not proposing to divert any toward
that. But we could potentially partner with entities that do have such funds,
such as the City, County, or nonprofit organizations, to create mixed use
spaces where the park facilities would be on the first floor of a building with
other uses above that.
The Park Board would not need to own the upper floors. We could simply
"condo-ize" a building. This is something Vancouver, Canada has done--they put
housing above rec centers, which helps cover the costs of building those
facilities. Closer to home, Carver County has multiple government buildings
with housing above them. The library in Waconia for example has senior housing
above it.
My view is that when there's a location close to high quality public transit,
it's wasteful to build just a one-story building. The most expensive parts of a
building are the foundation and the roof. It doesn't cost much to add a second
or third floor once you've already committed to the first.
I am extremely dedicated to preserving and expanding our green space. I view
that as a solemn responsibility. It is only when a land use has already been
forfeit to a structure or parking lot that I believe we should take a closer
look at how we might be able to make better use of the space.
Indeed the value generated from a mixed use building could enable us to acquire
a lot MORE green space. Lola's has gotten all the attention thus far, but the
other building that the Park Board is likely to reconstruct in the near future
(if we can come to agreement with Pillsbury United Communities) is the Brian
Coyle Rec Center. What I would love to see happen there is for the Park Board
to buy Lot A (the ghastly surface parking lot behind Red Sea) from the City,
reconstruct the rec center on Lot A with mixed use above it, and transform the
existing Brian Coyle building and the remainder of Lot A into new green space.
If we allow a taller building to be built above the new rec center, that could
generate all the funds to cover every amenity on the community's wishlist. New
green space, additional gyms, multipurpose rooms, community kitchen, you name
it.
I believe we should consider these possibilities every time we reconstruct a
building. Lola's just happens to be the first building we are reconstructing
this term. I put the idea of housing out there because it was the first thing
that came to mind, and housing for Native Americans in particular was at the
forefront of my mind due to the debate over the name of Bde Maka Ska and the
plight of those going through homelessness at the Hiawatha encampment.
If people feel that housing wouldn't work well at that site in particular,
there are other uses we could consider there. For example, we could put
classrooms for the sailing school on the second floor. Or perhaps a second
restaurant or coffee shop above Lola's. We could have patio seating on the
roof, which would have gorgeous views of both the lake and the skyline. I'm not
committed to any particular use there, but I do strongly believe that if we
rebuild the structure at all, we should rebuild it with more than one story.
The question of whether we should actually rebuild it or not in the first place
is itself not firmly decided. The insurance payment will not cover the cost of
reconstructing what was there before. To rebuild it as it exactly as it was, we
would need to divert significant funds from some other project, or come up with
a different source of revenue. A multi-story building could generate the
revenue to make reconstruction self-sufficient.
If we do rebuild, there's no particular reason we would need to do so at that
precise location. The existing plan for the area calls for a new building to be
built for sailing classrooms on the north shore, to the west of the Lola's
site. President Bourn has suggested that perhaps we could rebuild at that
location instead, with Lola's + sailing classrooms + ??? there. The existing
Lola's site could be transformed into a broader plaza. This option would
prevent obstruction of views of the skyline.
The Park Board also owns a massive parking lot nearby, adjacent to the Calhoun
Executive Center (which needs to be renamed). I definitely believe we could
make much better use of that land than surface parking. A mixed use project
there could generate the funds for any number of things, while preserving
parking availability for the public (just moving it underground). We could
build a land bridge with green space over Lake Street for example, to better
connect the lakes together without needing to wait at a stop light. Or there
could be a new rec center on the first floor of a new building there.
I reject the notion that it's out of my "lane" for the Park Board to be
considering these ideas. First, as I have described, by making better use of
land, we could generate the funds to provide park amenities with tremendous
public benefit. But more than that, the housing crisis has a huge impact on our
park system. When I went on a bike-a-long with our park police, they spent
nearly all their time that day addressing issues arising from homelessness.
Park police are evicting people from the parks constantly, often without having
anywhere to send them when shelters are full or people choose not to use them.
The housing crisis is in fact one of the biggest problems affecting the Park
Board right now. I am well aware that the Park Board can't possibly solve that
problem its own. But I believe there are ways we could do our part to help, and
we should do what we can.
I am not remotely concerned about any Charter violation. First, as John Hayden
and Zach Wefel explained in the previous thread, there is nothing in the
Charter that excludes the Park Board from being involved in housing. Second,
even if there was such a restriction, it would not be relevant, because to my
knowledge no one is proposing that the Park Board should own or operate any of
the housing that might be built as part of a mixed use project.
In the unlikely event that someone was able to somehow successfully sue us over
that, they would presumably force us to evict the Superintendent and his
family. They live in a house in the middle of a park. So do the residents of
Nicollet Island.
I welcome feedback about how we can make the best possible use of Park Board
spaces. Feel free to email me at <email obscured> with any opinions
or ideas you would like to share.
Chris Meyer
Park Commissioner District 1