an advisory services panel report minneapolis...

A N A D V I S O R Y S E R V I C E S P A N E L R E P O R T

MinneapolisMinnesota

Urban LandInstitute$

MinneapolisMinnesotaConnections and Linkages in Downtown

December 4–7, 2007An Advisory Services Program Report

ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

An Advisory Services Program Report2

The mission of the Urban Land Institute is toprovide leadership in the responsible use ofland and in creating and sustaining thrivingcommunities worldwide. ULI is committed to

• Bringing together leaders from across the fieldsof real estate and land use policy to exchangebest practices and serve community needs;

• Fostering collaboration within and beyondULI’s membership through mentoring, dia-logue, and problem solving;

• Exploring issues of urbanization, conservation,regeneration, land use, capital formation, andsustainable development;

• Advancing land use policies and design prac-tices that respect the uniqueness of both builtand natural environments;

• Sharing knowledge through education, appliedresearch, publishing, and electronic media; and

• Sustaining a diverse global network of localpractice and advisory efforts that address cur-rent and future challenges.

Established in 1936, the Institute today has morethan 40,000 members worldwide, representing theentire spectrum of the land use and developmentdisciplines. Professionals represented include de-velopers, builders, property owners, investors, ar-chitects, public officials, planners, real estate bro-kers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, financiers,academics, students, and librarians. ULI reliesheavily on the experience of its members. It isthrough member involvement and informationresources that ULI has been able to set standardsof excellence in development practice. The Insti-tute has long been recognized as one of the world’smost respected and widely quoted sources of ob-jective information on urban planning, growth,and development.

About ULI–the Urban Land Institute

©2008 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or anypart of the contents without written permission of the copy-right holder is prohibited.

3Minneapolis, Minnesota, December 4–7, 2007

The goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Programis to bring the finest expertise in the realestate field to bear on complex land use plan-ning and development projects, programs,

and policies. Since 1947, this program has assem-bled well over 400 ULI-member teams to helpsponsors find creative, practical solutions forissues such as downtown redevelopment, landmanagement strategies, evaluation of develop-ment potential, growth management, communityrevitalization, brownfields redevelopment, mili-tary base reuse, provision of low-cost and afford-able housing, and asset management strategies,among other matters. A wide variety of public,private, and nonprofit organizations have con-tracted for ULI’s Advisory Services.

Each panel team is composed of highly qualifiedprofessionals who volunteer their time to ULI.They are chosen for their knowledge of the paneltopic and screened to ensure their objectivity.ULI’s interdisciplinary panel teams provide aholistic look at development problems. A re-spected ULI member who has previous panelexperience chairs each panel.

The agenda for a three-day panel assignment is in-tensive. It includes an in-depth briefing composedof a tour of the site and meetings with sponsorrepresentatives; interviews with community rep-resentatives; and one day for formulating recom-mendations. On the final day on site, the panelmakes an oral presentation of its findings and con-clusions to the sponsor. At the request of the spon-sor, a written report is prepared and published.

Because the sponsoring entities are responsiblefor significant preparation before the panel’s visit,including sending extensive briefing materials toeach member and arranging for the panel to meetwith key local community members and stake-holders in the project under consideration, partici-pants in ULI’s panel assignments are able to makeaccurate assessments of a sponsor’s issues and to

provide recommendations in a compressed amountof time.

A major strength of the program is ULI’s uniqueability to draw on the knowledge and expertise ofits members, including land developers and own-ers, public officials, academics, representatives offinancial institutions, and others. In fulfillment ofthe mission of the Urban Land Institute, thisAdvisory Services panel report is intended toprovide objective advice that will promote the re-sponsible use of land to enhance the environment.

ULI Program StaffMarta V. GoldsmithSenior Vice President, Community

Thomas W. EitlerDirector, Advisory Services

Cary SheihSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Matthew RaderSenior Associate, Advisory Services

Caroline DietrichPanel Coordinator, Advisory Services

Romana KernsAdministrative Assistant, Advisory Services

Nancy H. StewartDirector, Book Program

Laura Glassman, Publications Professionals LLCManuscript Editor

Betsy VanBuskirkArt Director

Martha LoomisDesktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics

Kim RuschGraphics

Craig ChapmanDirector, Publishing Operations

About ULI Advisory Services

An Advisory Services Program Report4 An Advisory Services Program Report4

On behalf of the Urban Land Institute, thepanel would like to thank the representa-tives of the city of Minneapolis. Specialthanks go to Mayor R. T. Rybak for his in-

terest and involvement in this advisory panel andto Council Member Cam Gordon, who is inti-mately familiar with the neighborhoods and issuesin the study area. The panel also thanks membersof the city staff, especially Barbara Sporlein, JohnWertjes, Steven Hay, and Beth Elliott. Their sup-port for the panel, including the briefing books,tour, interviews, and meetings, was invaluable.

The panel is also grateful to Caren Dewer, fromULI Minnesota. Caren was closely involved withpreparations for the panel visit, and this short butintense process would simply not have been possi-ble without her help. The panel also wishes to

thank all of the other members of ULI Minnesotawho were involved in this process, especiallyRobert Engstrom, who has been the guiding lightand apostle of ULI in Minnesota.

The panel wishes to thank the dozens of individu-als who participated in the interviews and work-shops and those who attended the final presenta-tion. The ultimate success of the ULI paneldepends on continued public involvement in theland-planning process.

Finally, the panel and staff wish to thank the ULIFoundation, which provided the monetary supportto make this panel possible.

Acknowledgments


ULI Panel and Project Staff 6

Foreword: The I-35W Bridge Collapse 7

Market Considerations 10

Development and Planning Recommendations 15

Implementation 21

Conclusion 24

About the Panel 25

Contents


Marilee UtterPresidentCitiventure Associates, LLCDenver, Colorado

ULI Project DirectorThomas W. EitlerDirector, Advisory Services

ULI Media RelationsMarge FaheyDirector, Media Relations

Panel ChairMaureen McAveyExecutive Vice President—InitiativesULI–the Urban Land InstituteWashington, D.C.

Panel MembersRobert DunphySenior Resident Fellow—TransportationULI–the Urban Land InstituteWashington, D.C.

Barry ElbasaniPresidentELS Architecture and Urban DesignBerkeley, California

Dan GlassonVisiting Fellow, InfrastructureULI–the Urban Land InstituteWashington, D.C.

Mary MeansPresidentMary Means + Associates, Inc.Alexandria, Virginia

ULI Panel and Project Staff

7

On August 1, 2007, Minneapolis and the na-tion were faced with an alarming tragedy.During evening rush hour, as people weregoing home from work, the Interstate 35W

bridge over the Mississippi River suddenly col-lapsed. Thirteen individuals —wives and husbands,mothers, fathers, and children—lost their lives.Others were injured. Miraculously, many peopleon the bridge at the time were able to scrambleto safety.

The city’s citizens and emergency forces displayedboth heroism and compassion in assisting others.Immediately, the city considered not only how tophysically repair the freeway but also how to repairthe wounds left by the rupture in the city’s fabric.

Subsequently, a team of staff members from thecity of Minneapolis began meeting to discuss thechallenges and opportunities that the bridge col-lapse had brought into focus. Although not specifi-cally related to the bridge, one of the themes thatemerged from these discussions was the strongdesire to reconnect the eastern side of downtownand the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood.

Several planning studies have been completed orare underway in these areas, but no overarchingplan or vision exists for the entire area that en-compasses Downtown East and Cedar-Riversideas well as other areas, including Elliot Park andthe downtown central business district (CBD).As part of that effort, the Urban Land Institutewas asked to work with city staff to consider thesurrounding neighborhoods.

Surrounding NeighborhoodsThe I-35W bridge and freeway network surround-ing it are, in some ways, a metaphor for the sepa-rations and connections that are occurring in Min-neapolis today. The bridge physically links severalcommunities. But one might ask: are the commu-

Minneapolis, Minnesota, December 4–7, 2007

nities connected? As an engineering form, thebridge network did several things:

• It carried 140,000 cars and trucks a day, 60 per-cent of which flow in and out of downtown.

• It joined a healthy downtown that is growingeastward with new condominiums and culturalofferings to the rest of the region.

• It linked the university powerhouse, its campus,cultural centers, and housing to the downtownand surrounding neighborhoods.

• It served as a gateway and access point to thehospitals and medical facilities adjoining theuniversity.

Foreword: The I-35W Bridge Collapse

Location map.

L A K E

S U P E R I O R

St. PaulMinneapolis

Bloomington

Duluth

Rochester

IOWA

MICHIGANNORTHDAKOTA

SOUTHDAKOTA

WISCONSIN

M I N N E S O T AM I N N E S O T A

C A N A D A


• It offered access and egress for sports fans andconcertgoers to attend events at the Hubert H.Humphrey Metrodome.

• While providing access, the network separatedthe neighborhoods from the rest of the city.

As a 1960s’ social and urban planning form, thebridge represented a different era. Freeways,bridges, and concrete flyovers were throwninto cities in the name of automobile efficiency,speeding through communities with no unneces-sary stops.

Planners have learned a few things since then.Minneapolis has added miles of bike and pedes-trian trails and is investing in more light rail andalso considering a streetcar system. Social andeconomic connections are gaining equal footingwith the engineering requirements of the mod-ern, global city.

The reconstruction of the I-35W bridge offers newhope to truly connect neighborhoods and commu-nity functions that today are isolated from one an-other, making a stronger city. In many respects,new connections, truly joining the neighborhoodsand communities of the city, will be the strongestmemorial and tribute to those who were not able tocomplete their crossing of the bridge on August 1.

The panel’s effort focuses on four areas: the I-35Wbridge area on the south bank of the river and sur-rounding transportation network; the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood, including Seven Corners;Downtown East, including the Mill area, Washing-ton Avenue, and the Metrodome; and the WestBank of the University of Minnesota campus. Indiscussions with city staff and some stakeholders,

the panel discussed the various roles and functionsthese areas serve.

The Cedar-Riverside neighborhood is dominatedby large institutional campuses: the University ofMinnesota’s West Bank campus, Augsburg Col-lege, and Fairview-University Hospitals. It alsoincludes significant housing, retail, and entertain-ment uses. Seven Corners provides music, the-ater, arts, and entertainment for neighbors anddowntown users. With a mix of housing, Cedar-Riverside is a portal for new immigrants and of-fers housing at affordable and workforce levels.The university and hospitals provide major em-ployment—more than 10,000 jobs at all incomelevels. In addition to employees, thousands of visi-tors a day come to study or seek services.

The Downtown East area has undergone revital-ization in recent years with the construction ofnew housing along Washington Avenue and South2nd Street. An arts corridor has developed along2nd Street, as well, with the construction of thenew Guthrie Theater, the Mill City Museum, andthe recently completed MacPhail Center forMusic. Most of the new housing in this area is up-scale condominiums appealing to empty nesters.

The stadium area contains unique challenges. OnVikings game days, and for major events, movingclose to 80,000 people in and out of the area is dif-ficult. Congestion and bottlenecks act as a deter-rent to surrounding development. At the sametime, a number of vacant and underused parcelsimmediately surrounding the stadium couldafford attractive new sites for office and down-town expansion.

The Panel’s AssignmentThe ULI panel was asked to address the followingquestions:

• How can neighborhoods separated by the I-35Wnetwork be better connected to each other andto downtown?

• How can the expanse of freeway network bemitigated?

• Do opportunities exist for redevelopment andgrowth, and if so, where?

The I-35W bridge collapseoccurred on August 1,2007.

©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM


• How can a vision for the area be defined andadvanced?

Summary of RecommendationsThe panel’s recommendations are summarizedas follows:

• Improve the physical and social connection be-tween the city’s two major economic engines: theDowntown/CBD and the University of Minnesota.

• Focus public realm improvements and economicincentive initiatives along the Washington Av-enue South/Cedar Avenue/Riverside Drive cor-ridor. Use the public realm and urban design el-ements to link the Downtown East andCedar-Riverside neighborhoods.

• Establish an ongoing dialogue and regularmeetings between the university and the cityregarding a shared strategic vision. Focus onthose efforts that the university and the citycan pursue jointly to achieve that strategic vi-sion. Find common ground regarding issues ofreal estate, urban design, and transportationthat will allow the relationship to flourish.

• Explore a new way to plan. Transform thesmall-area planning process into an intentionalneighborhood planning process with a focus ona larger shared strategic vision for the city andthe university. Incorporate strategies and in-centives that allow Downtown East and Cedar-

Riverside neighborhoods to begin to think asone area.

• Encourage and support a mix of housing typesand income levels, particularly in the DowntownEast neighborhood and along the waterfront.Concentrate unit types and price points to at-tract the university faculty and research popu-lations and draw other university, hospital, andcollege elements across the great divide of I-35W.

• Explore “capping” Washington Avenue SE (the“gulch”) with an air-rights platform to providenew acreage at the Cedar Avenue street level.Use this platform to establish new developablereal estate and to provide a better link betweenareas south and north of Washington Avenue SE.

City officials, includingMayor R. T. Rybak andCouncil Member CamGordon, brief the panel.


teachers and researchers. Much of their successdepends on the community in which they arelocated, because the best and the brightest arelooking for excellent quality of life and livingconditions.

These individuals are a subset of the creativeclass, a group of people who are a key drivingforce for economic development of postindustrialcities in the United States. The main advantageto a creative class is that it stimulates new ideas,high-tech industry, and regional growth. Eventhough the creative class has been around forcenturies, in the 1960s and 1970s, the UnitedStates became the first large country to be hometo a creative class that deals with informationtechnology. In the 1960s, less than 5 percent ofthe U.S. population was part of the creative class,which is now 26 percent of the population. A strongcreative class is vital in today’s global economy.Fierce competition has developed around whichcities can attract this group. Quality of life is keyto this competition.

The University of Minnesota is one of the mostcomprehensive public universities in the UnitedStates and ranks among the most prestigious. It isboth the state land-grant university, with a strongtradition of education and public service, and thestate’s primary research university, with faculty ofnational and international stature. The universityhas a student population of 50,402, making it thefourth largest in the country.

The panel believes that the university and the citymust pursue a joint strategy to attract theseprized researchers, which will result in continuedgrowth of the local economy. The results of a suc-cessful program can be staggering. For example,Engines of Economic Growth, a detailed reportpublished in 2000 on the economic and social ef-fects of Boston College, Boston University, Bran-deis University, Harvard University, Massachu-setts Institute of Technology, Northeastern

The city of Minneapolis is the heart of a thriv-ing metropolitan center that anchors thenorthern part of the Midwest. Once theworld’s flour-milling capital and a hub for

timber, Minneapolis is the primary business centerbetween Chicago, Illinois, and Seattle, Washing-ton. The region’s financial and commercial hub,the city also has a thriving world-class arts andtheater community. The city itself is a patchworkquilt of parks and leafy spaces, all coexisting withbig-city bustle and fueled by the steady chug andflow of the Mississippi River. Minneapolis is also acenter for education and the medical community.

The Twin Cities has a population of 3.2 million andis the 15th-largest metropolitan area in the UnitedStates. The city of Minneapolis has a population of387,970. The broadly defined metropolitan areahas a median family income of $68,000.

As the CBD of the metropolitan area’s economicbase, Minneapolis has a strong economy centeredon financial activities, professional and businessservices, education, and health services. The his-toric manufacturing sector has slowed but contin-ues to be the single-largest economic sector, fol-lowed by government, professional and businessservices, retail, and education and health services.

As part of the ULI panel process, the panel re-viewed a variety of information and interviewedpeople from all economic sectors. The briefing ma-terials provided to the ULI panel included marketinformation with a specific focus on the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood and the Downtown Eastarea. The following sections summarize the keyeconomic drivers in the city, specifically in thesetwo neighborhoods.

The University of MinnesotaThroughout the United States, universities, par-ticularly large research universities, are usingtheir prestige to attract the best and brightest

Market Considerations


University, Tufts University, and University ofMassachusetts Boston, determined that these uni-versities provided $7 billion to the local economy.In 2005, research and development work from theUniversity of Minnesota alone accounted for almost20,000 jobs in the regional economy. Intervieweesnoted that the university employs approximately17,000 people, and a reasonable estimate is that80,000 people a day are drawn to the main campus.By any measure, the university is a major eco-nomic driver.

On a smaller scale, the same can be said forAugsburg College, located in the Cedar-Riversideneighborhood. This small but well-respected lib-eral arts college offers undergraduate liberal artsand sciences as well as master’s degree programsin business, education, leadership, nursing, physi-cian assistant studies, and social work. The collegeplays an important role in the larger Minneapoliscommunity, takes advantage of its proximity tothe university, and is deeply involved in music,art, and theater studies. With approximately 3,800

students, Augsburg is another economic driver inthe study area.

Hospitals and Medical CentersThe University of Minnesota Medical Center,Fairview, is the main university hospital for theUniversity of Minnesota Medical School. The WestBank campus and hospital complex is known asthe Riverside Campus. It is owned and operatedby Fairview Health Services and is staffed byphysicians of University of Minnesota Physiciansand community physicians. It was previouslyknown as Fairview-University Medical Center.

Fairview includes inpatient and outpatient facili-ties and is connected with six community clinicsand many specialty clinics. Comprehensive ser-vices range from primary care, emergency care,and the delivery of thousands of babies each yearto care of patients with the most complex condi-tions. Areas of specialization include organ andblood and marrow transplantation, heart disease,

Looking back toward thecity from the Universityof Minnesota.


cancer, neurosciences, pediatrics, and behavioralillnesses.

The Medical Center and, located within it, Univer-sity of Minnesota Children’s Hospital, Fairview,were created in 1997 as a result of the merger ofthe University of Minnesota Hospital and Clinicand Fairview Health Services. Consistently namedamong the nation’s top hospitals byU.S. Newsand World Report, University of Minnesota Med-ical Center is among the most respected teachinginstitutions in the nation, balancing responsive-ness to patients’ needs and wishes with access toinnovative treatments and technology to deliveryof superior health outcomes.

The medical and health care facilities play animportant role in supporting the university’s med-ical and life science focus and contribute to theresearch focus of the university. As an economicdriver, the hospital is contributing significantlyto the area’s economy.

Market AnalysisThe commercial market analysis completed byZHA, Inc., in July 2007 shows interesting marketfundamentals in the downtown area, including thefollowing characteristics:

• A surprising concentration of offices exists inthe CBD. This concentration is higher than thatof other cities of similar size and demographic

makeup. The ZHA study attributes some of thisphenomenon to the skyway complex that was aresponse to the city’s weather issues.

• Downtown will experience the need for between292,000 and 488,000 square feet of office spaceannually over the next 15 years.

• The CBD will continue to be the leader in newClass A office space in the entire region.

• Outlying areas (those outside the CBD) willexperience interest as office locations with theprogress of public improvements, specifically,transit improvements and other public realmcomponents.

• Washington Avenue South will likely accommo-date new retail development.

• If the proper public improvements take place,the city could accommodate a higher retail-to-office ratio.

• Residential, although currently limited, hasa potential to remake the Downtown Eastneighborhood.

Downtown EastBased on the concentration of office buildings inthe CBD, the Downtown East neighborhood pro-vides some opportunities for new offices, whichmay come primarily through rehabilitation ofexisting industrial space for local organizations,rather than any significant new construction. Atthe time the panel visited Minneapolis, a lull—butnot a cessation—of residential development ex-isted in Downtown East. The higher-end condo-minium market will likely pick up.

Although the focus of new downtown retail will bein and around the Nicollet Mall area, opportunitiesfor new retail exist in Downtown East. As thepopulation grows with new and conversion condo-minium availability, the need for local service re-tail increases. Also, the ability to make Washing-ton Avenue South/Washington Avenue SE andCedar Avenue locations for restaurant and foodestablishments increases. Finally, industrial willcontinue to turn over to mixed-use formats thatcater to young professionals and the creative class

The Mill District is anintegral part of the city’seffort to reclaim olderindustrial areas for resi-dential, mixed-use, andentertainment uses.

13

who are looking for short commutes and proximityto the arts districts.

The Mill District, 2nd Street, and WashingtonAvenue SouthThe renaissance that has defined the Mill District,2nd Street, and the Washington Avenue corridorover the past decade follows a familiar and suc-cessful formula that dozens of cities throughoutthe United States have experienced. The cityshould be commended on the change in regula-tions that spurred the development community,through a series of public/private ventures, reha-bilitation projects, and new construction, to rede-velop this former industrial district into high-endliving and commercial space. This redevelopmenthas been augmented by the establishment of anarts and entertainment district centered oniconic structures, such as the Guthrie Theater andthe Mill City Museum. It is an extension of down-town and provides the city with a successful for-mula for redevelopment.

By redefining downtowns, the type of housingand arts-oriented uses in this area make the cityattractive to the creative population the univer-sity is seeking. The panel feels that leveragingthis type of development is appropriate in con-junction with a joint economic strategy that thecity and university should pursue. This area pro-vides a link, both physically and psychologically,between downtown, the Cedar-Riverside neigh-borhood, and the university.

Cedar-Riverside as a Gateway AreaAlthough the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood isdefined by several focal points, it has acted as thetraditional bohemian district to the university.The Seven Corners area is well known as themusic and bar district and is home to dozens ofeating establishments and community theaters.The arts flavor of the area is enhanced by thepresence of the University of Minnesota’s WestBank Arts Quarter, which is home to the univer-sity’s art programs. In fact, the university is theonly one in the nation with all of its arts disciplineslocated together in a single district.

Continuing south along Cedar Avenue, the foodand theater establishments provide an interesting,albeit coarse, mosaic of one- and two-story com-

mercial establishments and single-family homes,many divided into apartments and duplexes. Theentrepreneurial spirit of business establishmentscaters to those with an unconventional artisticlifestyle. The area abounds in self-expression andis a gathering place for artists, actors, musicians,poets, dancers, and painters. The numerous the-aters in this neighborhood are a key attractionthat can be exploited in attracting the new resi-dents. From the panel’s perspective, the funki-


Above: Second Avenuecontinues to undergotransformation into atrendy mixed-use area.Left: the Riverside Plazadevelopment is a recog-nizable landmark in theCedar-Riverside neighbor-hood. Built in the 1960s,the apartment complex isfacing the challengescharacteristic of a mixedethnic area.


ness of the neighborhood can be considered aneconomic driver.

Riverside Plaza is home to between 2,500 and3,500 people, many of whom are immigrants andrefugees. Currently, most immigrants in theneighborhood come from East Africa. The highnumber of Somali refugees, in particular, hasearned the neighborhood the nickname “LittleSomalia” or “Little Mogadishu.” East Africans arethe latest wave of foreign-born residents, follow-ing the Europeans of a century and more ago, andthe Vietnamese and other Asians of just 20 yearsback. Although some challenges are associatedwith this community, the panel sees the area as athriving, active part of the city’s fabric. This acces-sible location for an immigrant population offersboth proximity to nearby jobs in downtown andthe university and learning opportunities.

MetrodomeBuilt in 1980, the Hubert H. Humphrey Metro-dome is located west of I-35W between 4th and5th streets. Located on the Hiawatha light-railtransit (LRT) line, the Metrodome is currentlyhome to the Vikings football organization. Sundayafternoon football games are events within thecity attracting thousands of spectators and visi-

tors. “Tailgating” is a popular pastime in the sur-rounding surface parking lots. The Metrodome hasbeen recognized as one of the loudest domedvenues in which to view a game, partly caused bythe domed roof’s recycling of sound throughoutthe stadium.

The Metrodome hosted Major League Baseball’sMinnesota Twins and the University of Minne-sota’s football team; however, each of those teamsis now building its own stadium. The panel did notinterview anyone from the Vikings football orga-nization or the Sports Authority, but many peoplethe panel spoke with did express concern aboutthe current viability of the Metrodome. Plans ap-parently exist to rehabilitate the stadium or tobuild a new stadium, making it more friendly tospectators and adaptable to various events. Eventhough it hosts only eight Vikings home gameseach year, it is still an economic driver that mustbe considered in any future strategies for the city.

In recent years, the Metrodome has experiencedsignificant competition for nonsports events, suchas concerts, from the Target Center in northdowntown and Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul.


15

The following section makes developmentand design recommendations by geographicarea. The panel is not suggesting a specificchronological order for the recommenda-

tions, but to build interest and support, startingfrom both ends of the study area (CBD and theuniversity) and working toward the middle maymake sense.

Central Business DistrictThe panel commends the city’s intentional effortto focus development in a compact, walkable CBD.The strategy is having powerful results in secur-ing the CBD as a desirable district for business,living, and learning. West of Portland Avenue, thescale and density of uses are appropriately moreintense than envisioned for Downtown East,which should find its own identity and economicsuccess as a mid-rise district.

Mill Area and South WaterfrontIn the east end of the Mill District, the Mill CityMuseum, Guthrie Theater, and MacPhail Centerfor Music are precious anchors with new residen-tial and other uses doing well. Redevelopment ofthose portions of the study area along I-35W isless certain of the same success.

Recapture of the waterfront is well established onthe north side of the river but still offers opportu-nities on the south side. Waterfront sites are a lim-ited commodity and should be carefully consideredand planned. The ten-year future of Gold MedalPark is far from certain, and far-sighted userscovet other key sites. Providing public access overtime, adequate density, and appropriate uses andcompatible design are essential to this importantelement of Minneapolis.

Chicago Avenue and WashingtonAvenue South IntersectionAs Downtown East comes to life, the intersectionof Chicago Avenue and Washington Avenue Southpresents a new 100 percent corner. Chicago is anatural connection from the Elliot Park neighbor-hood to the downtown CBD. It bounds the northend of the Metrodome parcel and continues to theMilwaukee Railroad shed on Washington Boule-vard, the Mills neighborhood, and the waterfront.The Chicago and Washington intersection has his-toric fabric, vacant land, excellent access, visibil-ity, and traffic—a recipe for very special develop-ment. The city should carefully consider this areawhen it sets regulations and design guidelines tonot underdevelop this key junction.

Metrodome AreaWhen originally sited, the Metrodome was an is-land in an underdeveloped industrial area. Expec-tations in that era were for neighborhood trans-formation and rejuvenation. As in many othercities across the nation, the building form andpeak-load parking requirements have had justthe opposite effect.

Today, the stadium sits at perhaps the most criti-cal location in Downtown East. Perhaps morethan any other factor, it holds the future of theneighborhood. It is strategically located not onlyat a light-rail station, but also midway betweenthe powerhouse anchors of the University of Min-nesota and the CBD.

Moreover, the Metrodome represents a preciouslarge land assemblage that can be used to createboth a neighborhood and a regional anchor. Littlequestion exists that over time, as downtown grows,it will be forced to move east. The speed, charac-ter, and quality of that development will be largelydetermined by the character of the land use at theMetrodome site. Whether or not it continues to be


Development and PlanningRecommendations


used as a sports venue, the site should be requiredto densify in a mid-rise configuration, incorporatea mix of uses, and provide a landmark design sen-sitive to the neighborhood it dominates as well asthe identity of downtown.

Washington Avenue East/CedarDrive/Riverside Avenue CorridorThe backbone of Downtown East should be a con-nected and enhanced Washington Avenue South/Cedar Avenue/Riverside Avenue. These streetsshould be knit together with streetscape andurban design into “complete streets” that arebeautiful and equally welcoming to pedestrians,cyclists, transit, and automobiles. The diverseneighborhoods and destinations will shape thechanging character of the boulevard, not to diluteor pasteurize commercial districts that includeSeven Corners, Riverside, Metrodome, and MillDistrict, but to enhance and beautify them.

These destinations make this corridor a naturalfor a streetcar as well. The length of the line andthe support it offers business and retail districtswould spur development compatible with the vi-sion for Downtown East. As are dozens of othercommunities, Minneapolis could use parking rev-enues, a benefit district, and tax increment financ-ing (TIF) to fund this development with minimal,if any, federal funds. With or without the street-car, the sense of entrance and gateway to eachneighborhood should be emphasized, because thatis indeed the true magic of this district.

Capping the GulchSome of the interviewees referred to the Wash-ington Avenue SE right-of-way as the “gulch.”Physically and figuratively, this deep ravine in-cludes a constant stream of traffic that makescrossing at the road level impossible.

Critical to creating the new Washington AvenueSouth/Cedar Avenue/Riverside Avenue corridor


CentralBusinessDistrict

Arts/Housing

Housing/Mixed Use

PedestrianBridge

94

35

Universityof Minnesota



Elliot Park Housing

Housing

AugsburgCollege

FairviewHospital

New LightRail Stop

N

Mississippi River

Washington Avenue South

Chica

goAv

enue

Riverside Avenue

Washington Avenue SoutheastHumphreyMetrodome

Ceda

r Ave

nue

Major Activity Nodes

Key

Future Development Focus Area Landscape/Streetscape Improvements Light-Rail Transit

The Washington AvenueSouth/Cedar Avenue/River-side Avenue corridor isthe unifying link betweenDowntown, the university,college, and hospital. Majoractivity nodes at ChicagoAvenue, I-35, Seven-Corners and Cedar-River-side should be enhancedwith public realmimprovements and rede-velopment incentives.

17

is the connection at the “knuckle” where a newlight-rail station will be sited at Cedar Avenue andWashington Avenue South. An exciting opportu-nity exists to bring development to the edges andeven deck over the Washington Avenue SE trenchto create value from five-plus acres of “new land”and air rights. The cost can be offset with new acre-age created by building a platform over the road.Additionally, the platform improves the connec-tion between the Cedar Avenue area and SevenCorners both visually and from a vehicle and pe-destrian perspective.

The panel encourages the city to look at examplesof road and right-of-way capping in other cities.Interstate 670 in Columbus, Ohio; U.S. Route 101in Los Angeles; and the rail yards at Washington,D.C.’s Union Station are just a few examples ofareas that have proposed capping or decking torecover buildable land from right-of-way.

ToolsOver the next ten years, the city should set somegoals. The panel recommends considering some ofthe following possibilities.

Increased Housing NumbersMinneapolis currently has more than 20,000 down-town housing units, and the city’s planners expectto expand that number by another 10,000 units

over ten years. The expansion of housing in the in-tervening areas between Downtown East and theCedar-Riverside area (“the intervening area”) willbe key—combined with the concurrent develop-ment of office-commercial space—in seeding thefoundation for restored connectivity betweendowntown Minneapolis and the University of Min-neapolis area.

In addition to driving for mere numbers with thishousing goal, the panel recommends describingthe character of those units. The panel sees an op-portunity for this intervening area as a destina-tion for mixed-income dwellers employed in staffand faculty positions in nearby Minneapolis educa-tional institutions, notably the University of Min-nesota and Augsburg College. Few of these newhousing units should be high-end condominium de-velopment. Instead, the panel recommends adenser character of middle-income condominiumdevelopment.

Combined with a clarified riverfront parks andrecreation system and expanded access to com-mercial and entertainment opportunities—bothexisting and projected—developing a mixed-useneighborhood will create a reason for greatercooperation between the city and the universityon improved pedestrian, transit, and automobileconnectivity through the I-35W corridor.


At-grade decking

Street and light-rail transit right-of-way

A conceptual sectionshowing the decking ofWashington AvenueSoutheast in the vicinityof the proposed transitstation. All around theworld roads are beingcapped or decked torecover buildable landfrom right-of-way.


Increased Office SpaceAlthough the intervening area lacks a full mixtureof uses, it offers undeveloped parcels suitable toattract flagship office development. The panel isstrongly persuaded by the mill-town history andarchitecture of the area, as well as its proximityto the Mill District (arts and entertainment desti-nations). A vision for increased office in this areacould be like the Lower Downtown (the “LoDo”District) area in the northern part of Denver,Colorado. That area successfully integrates com-mercial development with corporate office space.Connected to nearby Coors Field, the LoDoDistrict has become a destination place in down-town Denver.

Downtown East could fulfill a similar role. Aflagship office development directly east of theGold Medal Park—and with a footprint largeenough to attract such a local institution such asValspar Corporation—would anchor this areaas a connector between Downtown East and theCedar-Riverside neighborhood. Combining sucha flagship development with small office rentalopportunities, the area would beg for increasedaccess—overcoming the I-35W barrier—with theuniversity areas to the east. Additionally, a flag-ship office development on the river would seedthe expansion of office, residential, and retail de-velopment south of the river, ideally in coordi-nation with a clarified sports and entertainmentdevelopment for the land comprising and sur-rounding the existing Metrodome.

For a ten-year goal, the city could assemble parcelssouth of a dedicated river park and recreationalarea, east of the Gold Medal Park and west ofI-35W. The focus would be on retaining the histor-ical mill character of this area through a flagshipoffice-retail development with sufficient footprintand office capacity to attract Valspar or a simi-lar tenant.

Increased Retail and EntertainmentThe intervening area contains the entire DNAnecessary for successful retail and entertainment:location, history, historical architecture, and cre-ativity of people. The Guthrie Center already at-tracts world-class theater and performance enter-tainment to the Minneapolis area, and the Guthriehas an established connection to downtown Min-

neapolis. The historical aesthetic attributes of thisarea are a destination in themselves, both by visi-tors from the downtown Minneapolis area andthose from the adjacent river recreational trails.Fine-grained retail mixes easily with residentialdevelopment, starting with and extending eastfrom the Guthrie. A clarified vision for expandedretail and entertainment in the area east of thisGuthrie development would catalyze corollary res-idential development and provoke an improve-ment in the east-west connections.

Increased retail and entertainment will connectwith the established and nascent theater presenceof the Mixed Blood Theatre and other theaters inthe Cedar-Riverside neighborhood. Situated be-tween these poles of theater and entertainmentdevelopment—and north of the Metrodome—thearea would serve as a destination both duringsporting and other entertainment events andduring off-peak times. Creating a diverse offeringof retail complementary to the mixed-use, mixed-income vision for the area would cement it as ananchor between Downtown East and the Cedar-Riverside neighborhoods. The presence of a vi-brant, new district, imbued with office, entertain-ment, retail, and commercial opportunities, couldserve as an attractive destination point to the ben-efit of all Minneapolis institutions, particularly theuniversity, college, and hospital.

A ten-year goal should be branding the areawith its arts and entertainment focus. Brandingthe Mixed Blood Theatre, the Guthrie, and othervenues as one area will take advantage of the“cluster” effect that is so prevalent in retail andtourist development.

University and Augsburg ExpansionThe U.S. Census Bureau reports 48,651 workersin the education sector in Minneapolis. More than20,000 of those workers are employed by the Uni-versity of Minneapolis, with neighboring Augs-burg College employing approximately 370 facultyand staff. Enrollment at the University of Min-nesota (Minneapolis campus) exceeds 47,000, andthe enrollment of Augsburg College is reported at3,785. The educational sector is the second-leadingemployment sector in Minneapolis after the healthcare sector.


19

Competitive, sustainable modern economies areknowledge economies, and the city of Minneapolisbenefits immeasurably from its wealth of institu-tions of higher learning. Additionally, the Univer-sity of Minnesota is a preeminent research institu-tion in such areas as medicine and engineering.Combined with its proximity to world-class med-ical institutions such as the Mayo Clinic and thehealth care employment base, the city of Min-neapolis reaps great benefits from its concentra-tion of medical activities that originate with theuniversity. Additionally, the city of Minneapolis isa vibrant metropolitan area with a growing econ-omy and a wealth of employment, retail, and en-tertainment opportunities. Minneapolis has beenrecognized as one of the most active communitiesin America, near a plethora of recreational anddestination activities. Connecting the prominenceof the city and the university starts with buildinga stronger relationship between the two.

Historically, and over the past 10 to 15 years inparticular, universities have formalized their rela-tionships with neighboring urban areas to achievemutual benefits. The relationship formed betweenYale and the city of New Haven, Connecticut, is aprime example. These relationships recognize thebenefits each entity may gain from a shared visionthat links the success of the urban area with thesuccess of the educational institution in the formof jobs, increased enrollment, and economic devel-opment (attraction of education-related indus-tries). The panel recommends creating a formalprocess that would cultivate such a relationshipbetween the University of Minnesota and the cityof Minneapolis, culminating in shared vision thatis used as strategic guidance for future develop-ment in Minneapolis.

The embodiment of this relationship should bethe development of the intervening area betweenDowntown East and Cedar-Riverside. This areashould attract students from the Cedar-Riversideeducational institutions to its retail, restaurants,bars, and entertainment, while also offering a cre-ative vibe in which students, staff, and faculty canlive and work.

Other Focus AreasThe panel believes that other important issuesshould be explored by the city, the university, and

neighborhoods, including a focus on waterfront ac-tivities, vacant and underused land, and financialtechniques for funding improvements such as TIFand business improvement districts (BIDs). Theyshould also explore making improvements to theexisting street grid.

Park and waterfront expansion. The rediscovery ofthe Mississippi River’s attractiveness as a desig-nated heritage river has created opportunities fordevelopment, recreation, and improved trans-portation connections. Completion of the WestRiver Parkway and the east river road will en-hance accessibility to the river and connectivity tothe city. Development of the trail network createspotential for recreational walking, running, andcycling, as well as enhanced opportunities for non-motorized trips as part of daily travel routines.

Along the waterfront, development opportunitiesalso exist, which must be carefully balanced withpreservation. The Marcy Homes area, for exam-ple, may come under increased pressure for rede-velopment as a result of that site’s appeal. On theWest Bank, some undeveloped parcels on thebluffs near the I-35W bridge are being consideredas a park, but they could also generate significantopportunities and revenues for the city from hous-ing and mixed-use development.

Vacant and underused land. The panel has observedexamples of selected redevelopment throughoutthe central area—along 2nd street and the MillDistrict, in the Seven Corners area, and in theCedar-Riverside neighborhood. The one areathat has yet to experience such redevelopment isaround the Metrodome, built in the 1970s. A rede-velopment plan by the Sports Authority may helpjump-start long-promised development in this un-derused area; at the same time, a “plan B” shouldbe developed in anticipation of a possible Vikingsmove when their lease expires in 2011. This plancould involve street realignment and reconnectionthat could substantially improve the potential at-tractiveness of development parcels.

TIF and BID financing. One of the leading exam-ples of TIF in the nation is that used for NicolletMall, still one of the most successful such projects.Perhaps surprisingly, this early model has not yetgenerated a follow-up example for a broader down-



town BID. In part, this absence is because ofdowntown property owners’ concerns about thehigh levels of current property taxes. Some con-cerns over the manner in which the taxes fromNicollet Mall are being spent may also be causingdowntown businesses to take a wait-and-see atti-tude to a BID. This financing mechanism offerssuch a potentially useful opportunity to maintaindowntown as a first-class business and entertain-ment center that the city and leading business of-ficials should work to find a useful solution.

Reconnecting the urban street grid. In 2007, MnDOTcompleted a study to address safety, growth, andcongestion on the downtown Minneapolis free-way system. The critical network of 12 interchangesand 80 bridges along seven to eight miles of free-way serves 500,000 trips daily, of which 60 percentare estimated to have one end in downtown. Thestudy anticipated the reconstruction of the I-35Wbridge. Surprisingly, this careful analysis of throughcapacity, safety improvements, and better con-nections to the existing street grid did not dealwith the issues of reconnecting critical streetssevered when the downtown freeways were builtin the 1960s.

The panel recommends that, as part of a broadervision for the downtown and nearby neighborhoods,selected improvements be made that will improveaccessibility to these growing areas, enhance mo-bility, and relieve the freeway system itself. Aspreviously noted, capping the gulch is one manner

of reconnecting neighborhoods. Other communities,notably Boston, San Francisco, and Columbus, haveactually removed freeways or reconstructed themto help better serve the communities in which theywere built. The panel strongly recommends thatMnDOT, Hennepin County, and the city of Min-neapolis use this opportunity to fix these urbanplanning mistakes of the past, with the supportof the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The best way to reconnect the emerging neigh-borhoods discussed here is through the surfaceroad and pedestrian network. Many of the streetsthat once provided an interconnected grid werecut off when the downtown freeway system wasbuilt in the 1960s, a common strategy eventuallystopped in cities such as New Orleans, San Fran-cisco, and Washington, D.C., when the conse-quences of building major roads through vibrantinner-city neighborhoods were understood.

Following the recommendations made by MnDOT’sthorough study of the freeway system in down-town Minneapolis could result in $2 billion in-vested in reconstruction and expansion to servegrowth and improve safety. To properly com-plete this network as well as to reinforce thedevelopment strategies proposed, the panel rec-ommends selected surface street connectionsand improvements.


21

Sometimes fresh perspective can lead tounexpected shifts. Perhaps what seemeda telescope is really a kaleidoscope, and ashift reveals an unexpected insight. That is

what the panel attempted to do during its briefvisit. Following are some of the ways to take ad-vantage of the revealed possibilities.

Getting There from HereFirst of all, the panel was impressed by the qual-ity of the city’s small-area plans—developed withthe robust neighborhood participation the city isknown for. Two of these—Downtown East and theElliot Park Master Plan—grounded the panel inthe city’s sensibilities regarding the future. Thatsaid, if one views the city as a jigsaw puzzle, withpieces scattered all over the table, some assem-bled in clusters—the two plans—everyone knowsit is much easier to put the puzzle together if youhave not misplaced the box with the picture ontop. Seeing the potential in some of the clusters,the panel found itself asking about the puzzle lid:where was it? Where is the big shared vision, thesense of what Minneapolis can and should be inthe 21st century, the picture of the assembled puz-zle? How will the community’s assets be leveragedto expand the wonderful quality of life here?

The panel’s assignment was about connections,finding ways to cross the divide created by 1950sand 1960s transportation facilities. That can bedone; however, other disconnections may be lessapparent. Minneapolis has a healthy downtownCBD and is home to a great university—not a milefrom the current edge of downtown—yet that mile,the I-35W corridor, may as well be the GrandCanyon, though far less beautiful. The time hascome to imagine connections as invisible networks,for the Internet and global communications havetaken us all to a new level, unimaginable by thehighway planners who created the lasting connec-tions that today divide the city.

The downtown buildings are familiar; what ishappening in them is unseen but is the future.Imagine the invisible connections: the networksof creativity and energy that link major globalbusinesses in downtown Minneapolis with finan-cial markets and supply chains and customers allover the world—Asia and Europe, and beyond.Arts groups in the Mill District are similarly ex-changing ideas, resources, and business deals withtheir counterparts in London, New York, Sydney,and beyond.

The university is also a familiar presence: nearlyeveryone the panel met is a graduate—go Gophers!But Minneapolis is more than a college town, morethan students and tailgaters and bars. Think aboutwhat is going on at the university that is invisibleto most of us. Within eyesight from downtown,across the trench and the I-35W divide, anothermajor node of knowledge, creativity, and energyis also connected worldwide—to scientists and re-searchers in India, China, and villages in Africa—as are all top research and teaching universities.Creative collaboration takes place 24/7 betweeninnovators at the university and their counter-parts around the globe.

Imagine better connections between these twonodes—downtown and the university—now physi-cally divided by I-35W. The future lies in loweringthe barriers so the knowledge and creativity thatis this great city’s biggest asset can be optimized.That calls for reimagining boldly the ways in whichbarriers like the trench are eliminated. These twoentities must ensure that the flow of Minnesota’sbrightest and most entrepreneurial future leadersis made possible, that destinations on both sides ofI-35W draw people back and forth, encouragingthem to bump into each other more often, drawnto this university, this downtown, over all thechoices available to them worldwide.


Implementation


Suggestions for Making It HappenThe panel suggests the following:

First, it may be time to break away from small-area plans and undertake a bold strategic planthat views the river and the area between thedowntown CBD and the university as the city’sstrongest physical asset, one that could benefitsignificantly from a shared vision. With a sharedvision, one can evaluate important proposals likesports and entertainment facilities strategicallyand more consciously consider how major pub-lic/private investments do—or do not—catalyzegreater vitality, better activity connections, anddestinations and spaces that draw people to live,to work, and to have fun.

Second, lessons can be learned from other thriv-ing, transformational university/community part-nerships. Not so long ago, universities turned in-ward, dealing with neighbors and cities when theyhad to. Today, world-class institutions—and theUniversity of Minnesota is one—know they com-pete globally for talent, for research funding, andfor intellectual connections. They know quality oflife is a key factor in competitiveness.

Improving the town-gown climate takes effort andcommitment, but the rewards are immense. Cityand university leaders can look to Ohio State Uni-versity’s Community Partners initiative, whichled to decking an interstate highway to restorethe lively walkable street grid and create immenselysuccessful development opportunities; or to theUniversity of Pennsylvania’s visionary new stra-tegic plan that boldly envisions Penn’s growth byforging connections to Center City Philadelphia,across even more-serious physical barriers thanI-35W—railroads and a river. In Philadelphia, withstrong consensus on the value of such an invest-ment, and understanding its economic potentialand consequences, public support for infrastruc-ture investments is emerging, and philanthropicand private investment is also coming forth.

Third, shift the way the city engages in commu-nity engagement. Episodic public engagement,such as the episodes surrounding developmentprojects, can often lead to conflict. Although thepanel supports the efforts currently underway in

the small-area plan format, those engagementshappen and then the community moves on to thenext thing. Having a community of interestswhere ongoing dialogue takes place can preventcommunication breakdowns. Learn together, andin learning and working together build the trustthat benefits all. Create a platform for regular dia-logue among the educational and medical institu-tions, the neighborhoods, small businesses, prop-erty owners, downtown leaders, and city andstate officials.

The University Alliance was mentioned as an ex-ample of community dialogue that is project spe-cific, around the new stadium. Interaction be-tween the community and the city also occurs, asreflected in the excellent work completed for theCedar Riverside and Elliot Park neighborhoods. Abroader, less project-focused approach is neededthat is more about fostering a climate of collabora-tion and shared benefit.

A good model is in Atlanta, where Emory Univer-sity has convened and is nurturing the fledglingbut promising Clifton Community Partnership.Here, after years of conflict, the informal (that is,not a part of formal government) process of creat-ing a shared vision and urban design guidelinesfor the areas within a mile of campus has allowedall voices to be heard; has prevented any fromdominating; and in doing so, has revealed greatcommunity benefit for the neighborhoods, prop-erty owners, and the university. It has also led toEmory’s undertaking significant congestion miti-gation actions.

With strong consensus behind the urban designguidelines, local government is very supportive ofenacting the needed zoning overlays that willsmooth the way to action. Thus, the Clifton Com-munity Partnership, a platform for constant inter-change, is fostering trust and a sense of collabora-tion. Messy? Sometimes. Effective? Yes, if themeasure of effectiveness is getting better thingsdone, adding livability while meeting the businessneeds of the university, and lowering barriers andbuilding connections.

Fourth, the city should be mindful of the impor-tant role media and communications play in mold-ing the public climate for visionary change. The


23

strategic planning process should include an inte-grated and sustained communications programthroughout the implementation process. Seldomdoes a bold redevelopment or capital project gofrom vision to plan, design, finance, and construc-tion during any one electoral cycle. Yet, too often,leaders neglect the importance of tending the pub-lic opinion climate, to sustain the story of whereindividual development projects—decisions aboutLRT station locations, streetscape and green spaceimprovements, sports facilities, buildings, andmore—are taking the city and how they relate tothe consensus-based vision. With the strategicplan as jigsaw puzzle box lid, excellent and sus-tained communications—visual as well as written—are what relate the various pieces, the clustersas they come on line over time, in the public mindto the vision.



The ULI panel members bring insights frommany other cities and communities that arestruggling without a shared vision. Thepanel knows the city is capable of coming to-

gether and taking action when instinct says that iswhat is needed. When the bridge collapsed, thecitizens of Minneapolis did not stand on the river-banks waiting for official help. With disregard forall caution, the city jumped right in and amazedthe world. The I-35W bridge will open in late 2008.A crisis prompted unprecedented cooperationamong city, county, state, and federal agencies;businesses; and institutions. Interstate 35W willresume its critical role in keeping the people andthe economy of the metropolitan area flowing andconnected.

Developing the shared strategic vision, focusingon linkages along the Washington Avenue South/Cedar Avenue/Riverside Avenue corridor, cappingthe gulch—each of these is not a crisis; one cannotexpect mountains to move, ideas to flow, or moneyto drop from heaven. But in many ways, takingthe steps to link a robust downtown with what isarguably Minnesota’s most important economicasset, its great research and teaching university—to open the flow of people, ideas, investment, andimagination—could be an amazing unintendedpositive consequence of the tragedy of August 1,2007. Could this connection become the lastingmemorial, a living acknowledgment that all wholost their lives that day were connected in invisi-ble ways to everyone in the region?


Conclusion

25

Maureen McAveyPanel ChairWashington, D.C.

McAvey is executive vice president for the Initia-tives Group at the Urban Land Institute in Wash-ington, D.C. ULI is the premier research and edu-cation organization within the real estate and landuse industry. In her position, McAvey is responsi-ble for all research and content programs currentlyunderway at the institute. Prior to her current po-sition, McAvey was the ULI Senior Resident Fel-low for urban development. She has over 25 yearsof experience in real estate development, consult-ing, and the creation of public/private financialstructures.

She was director, business development, for Fed-eral Realty Investment Trust (FRIT), a NewYork Stock Exchange—traded owner and man-ager of retail developments and mixed-use devel-opments. In that capacity, McAvey assisted in theestablishment of a public/private financial struc-ture of a mixed-use retail/housing development inArlington County, Virginia. She also completed asimilar public/private partnership with the city ofSan Antonio to further FRIT’s Houston Streetmixed-use project there. As part of the San Anto-nio project, tax increment financing, Urban Devel-opment Action Grant funds, and an Economic De-velopment Administration grant assisted infunding necessary public improvements.

For the city of St. Louis, McAvey served as the di-rector of development. In that mayoral cabinet-level capacity, she was also executive director ofthe St. Louis Development Corporation, leadingseven development-related boards and commis-sions. Major accomplishments included construc-tion of a new neighborhood commercial center, an-chored by a 60,000-square-foot, 24-hour grocery; aprivately financed $1 million master plan for therevitalization of the downtown area; negotiation of

development agreements to secure a new 1,000-room convention headquarters hotel; and a neigh-borhood planning effort.

Before her post in St. Louis, McAvey led the realestate consulting practices in Boston for Deloitte& Touche and for Coopers & Lybrand. While inthe “Big Six” firms, she directed the due diligenceefforts for over $12 billion in securitization proj-ects for major banking and financial institutions.Her clients included institutional developers,major corporations, utilities, colleges, and univer-sities. Consulting efforts ran the gamut of new fi-nancings, restructuring, troubled projects, strate-gic planning, and mergers and acquisitions.

Robert DunphyWashington, D.C.

Senior Resident Fellow, Transportation, at theUrban Land Institute, Dunphy created ULI’s pro-gram of transportation research and has been re-sponsible for the institute’s research, books, con-ferences, public policy, and public outreach ontransportation and land use, transit, and parking.In his previous role as transportation research di-rector, he directed studies of seven large regionsrecognized for their efforts in implementing con-sistent regional transportation and developmentpolicies, reported in his bookMoving Beyond Grid-lock: Traffic and Development. Dunphy is the au-thor or project director of numerous other books,including Development around Transit, Residen-tial Streets, Dimensions of Parking, Parking Re-quirements of Shopping Centers, and Transporta-tion Management through Partnerships, as wellas a forthcoming book on transit-oriented devel-opment and the transportation chapters in Imple-menting Smart Growth at the Local Level andTransforming Suburban Business Districts. Inaddition, he created “Myths and Facts aboutTransportation and Growth,” a popular brochure


About the Panel


that presented hard facts on often-soft issues andbecame the first in a series.

Dunphy has collaborated on a number of studies ofnational and research interest for the FederalTransit Administration, the governor of Maryland,and the District of Columbia. Dunphy is active innational committees of the Institute of Trans-portation Engineers and the Transportation Re-search Board, for which he chairs the Transporta-tion and Land Development committee. He is amember of Lambda Alpha International, an hon-orary land economics society. Dunphy is a fre-quent speaker on issues of transportation andsmart growth, transit-related development, andparking for national and local groups includingULI district councils, business and leadership or-ganizations, transit associations, and governmentagencies. He served on Maryland’s TransportationSolutions Group, organized by Governor Parris N.Glendening to advise on a controversial suburbanhighway proposal.

Barry ElbasaniBerkeley, California

Elbasani is a founding principal of ELS Archi-tects. He is responsible for overseeing all projectsand ensuring that the firm’s vision and underlyingphilosophy are sustained. Elbasani is committedto design solutions that respect their environmen-tal and cultural context, achieve architectural andtechnical excellence, and create places that cele-brate and enhance the experience of urban life.

Under his direction, ELS has earned a nationalreputation for its success in urban planning andthe design of major downtown retail and mixed-use projects, and performing arts, educational,and cultural, sports, and recreational facilities.Additionally, he has extensive experience in reno-vation and urban design.

His completed projects include Stonebriar Centre,near Dallas, Texas; Village of Merrick Park inCoral Gables, Florida; and Church Street Plaza inEvanston, Illinois. He is currently working on Vic-toria Ward Village Shops, a mixed-use urban vil-lage in Honolulu, Hawaii; a mixed-use campusgateway at Fresno State University, California;

Summerlin Town Center in Summerlin, Nevada;and Chiva City in Valencia, Spain.

Elbasani’s retail and mixed-use experience isbroad and includes several renovations and thedesign and planning of open-air, enclosed, and fes-tival retail centers. He was principal-in-charge forPioneer Place in Portland, which has been profiledin ULI publications and received an AIA DesignAward. The Grand Avenue in downtown Milwau-kee received the Award of Excellence in UrbanRetail, awarded by the ULI in 1988. DenverPavilions, North Point Center, Woodlands Mall,and Stonebriar Centre have all received designawards from the International Council of Shop-ping Centers.

Elbasani received a bachelor of architecture de-gree from Cooper Union School in 1964 and a mas-ter of architecture in urban design from HarvardUniversity in 1965. He is registered to practice ar-chitecture in California, Georgia, Florida, NewJersey, New York, and Texas and is certified bythe National Council of Architectural RegistrationBoards. He is a Fellow of the American Instituteof Architects and the Institute for Urban Design;is a member of the Urban Land Institute MixedUse Council, the International Council of Shop-ping Centers, and Lambda Alpha International;and has lectured at the University of California atLos Angeles’s real estate school. He has served onULI’s Advisory Panels for Downtown San Jose,Cincinnati, West Palm Beach, and the NationalsBaseball Stadium Arena in Washington, D.C.

Daniel L. GlassonWashington, D.C.

Glasson is a Visiting Fellow at the Urban Land In-stitute on loan from the Office of Economic Ad-justment (OEA) in the U.S. Department of De-fense. He joined OEA in June 2006 as a projectmanager. OEA is a field activity of the Depart-ment of Defense with a primary mission of assist-ing communities affected by defense programchanges, including base closures or realignments(BRAC), base expansions, and contract or pro-gram cancellations. Among Glasson’s multiple as-signments, he serves as an OEA project managerfor the Aberdeen Proving Ground (Maryland);

27

Fort Benning (Georgia); the Guam Military Com-plex; the state of Maryland; Compatible Growth/Joint Land Use Study projects in Florida and NewJersey; and several army and air force reservecenters in Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hamp-shire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Glasson is a Presidential Management Fellow(PMF), inducted into the PMF program in Octo-ber 2006. Prior to joining OEA, he was a projectmanager for the Economic Development Adminis-tration’s (EDA) University Center for EconomicDiversification at the University of Michigan inAnn Arbor. He assisted Michigan communities af-fected by automobile and other manufacturingplant closures, managing market and feasibilityanalyses and proposing economic turnaroundstrategies.

Glasson was also involved in urban redevelopmentplanning for several Michigan communities, in-cluding Traverse City and Jackson. Before joiningEDA, he was a consultant for Accenture. Glassonholds a master of urban planning degree and aCertificate in Russian and East European Studiesfrom the University of Michigan. He is a memberof the American Planning Association, a FulbrightScholar alumnus (Poland, 2004–2005), and a re-turned Peace Corps volunteer (Poland, 1998–2000).

Mary MeansAlexandria, Virginia

Means is founder and president of Mary Means +Associates, Inc., a planning and community devel-opment firm that helps cities, towns, counties, andcivic interest groups make their communities bet-ter places to live, work, and visit.

She has extensive experience in community-basedstrategic planning, often involving the need tobridge boundaries: jurisdictional, organizational,socioeconomic, and disciplinary. She has headedteams responsible for large community vision plans,regional heritage development efforts, urbanneighborhood plans, county growth-managementefforts, and scenic road corridor-managementplans. Her active involvement in national net-works, coupled with an active calendar of confer-ence engagements, keeps her abreast of best prac-

tices in community development, civic engage-ment, and heritage tourism. Before forming MaryMeans + Associates, Means was vice president ofthe National Trust for Historic Preservation,where she is best known for having created theNational Main Street program.

Means has led many successful community-basedstrategic planning efforts that have galvanizedsupport for positive change in struggling down-towns, older neighborhoods, and fast-growingcommunities. The Rutland, Vermont, Redevelop-ment Strategy served as blueprint for $45 millionin new investment and dramatic change in thecity’s image and civic health. The SpotsylvaniaCounty (Virginia) Comprehensive Plan markedthe emergence of deep community support forstrong growth management policies. The Akron(Ohio) Downtown Vision Plan defined develop-ment strategies that quickly led to strong commu-nity support for a new downtown baseball parkand other arts and entertainment projects.

A recognized national leader in heritage develop-ment, Means has prepared concept plans, feasibil-ity studies, and management plans for large na-tional heritage areas, trails and greenways, andscenic byways in several states. She led the multi-disciplinary teams that prepared plans for theDelaware & Lehigh Canal National Heritage Cor-ridor and the Lancaster-York Heritage Region.Her background in history and avid interest inkayaking serve the firm’s interpretive planningassignments well. Means was a founding memberof the National Center for Heritage Developmentand served as program chair for three nationalheritage development conferences.

She has a master’s degree in history and a bache-lor of arts in humanities. She was Loeb Fellow atHarvard University’s Graduate School of Design.

Marilee UtterDenver, Colorado

Utter is president of Citiventure Associates LLC,a Denver-based real estate development and con-sulting firm specializing in transit-oriented devel-opment, urban infill, and public/private transac-tions. Her areas of particular expertise include



mixed-use projects, bus- and rail-anchored devel-opments, large-scale master planning, reuse ofhistoric buildings, and recapture of environmen-tally affected sites.

Utter’s background in both public and private realestate has lead to nationally published articles andnumerous engagements focused on innovative ap-proaches to community redevelopment and urbanissues. Projects of note include leading the Devel-opment around Transit efforts on the T-Rex proj-ect and more than 25 other sites in the Denver re-gion; redevelopment of a failed regional mall,Cinderella City, into a one-million-square-footmixed-use transit-oriented town center; redevel-opment of a 350,000-square-foot historic down-town department store, the Denver Dry Building,into housing, retail, and office spaces; and masterplan and zoning for 65 acres in Denver’s CentralPlatte Valley, transforming the urban rail yardinto the region’s premier commercial, residential,and recreational district.

Previously, Utter was transit-oriented develop-ment specialist for the Regional TransportationDistrict (Denver); regional vice president for Tril-lium Corporation, a real estate development com-pany; director of asset management for the Cityand County of Denver; and vice president of WellsFargo Bank.

Utter holds a BA in mathematics and French fromColorado Women’s College, an MBA from the An-derson School of the University of California atLos Angeles, and a certificate in State and LocalPublic Policy from Harvard’s Kennedy School.Her professional affiliations include the Counselorof Real Estate designation and membership in theUrban Land Institute, CU Real Estate Center,and the Congress for New Urbanism. She serveson the board of several community organizations,including the Metropolitan State College of Den-ver Foundation and the Center for the Visual Arts.

$ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201

an advisory services panel report minneapolis...

Documents